TITLE:  Paragon Systems, Inc., B-284694.2, July 5, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284694.2
DATE:  July 5, 2000
**********************************************************************
Paragon Systems, Inc., B-284694.2, July 5, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Paragon Systems, Inc.

File: B-284694.2

Date: July 5, 2000

Robert M. Cambridge, Esq., for the protester.

Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., and Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel,
for Halifax Corporation, an intervenor.

Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and John Metcalf, Esq., Department of the Army,
for the agency.

Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that delivery order and prior contract modification upon which order
was issued were not within the scope of the original contract is denied
where both the order and the earlier modification were within the scope of
the contract as awarded.

DECISION

Paragon Systems, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's failure to
compete
the procurement for network engineering services in support of the billet
structure management information system (BSMIS) at the U.S. Army,
Communications and Electronics Command Technology Applications Office (TAO).
The Army issued delivery order No. 47 for these services to Halifax
Corporation under the agency's indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
(ID/IQ) contract, No. DAAB07-97-D-3001, with Halifax. Paragon contends that
the services called for under the delivery order are not within the scope of
the Halifax contract and that the requirement should have been competed or
properly justified as a noncompetitive award.

We deny the protest.

The Army competitively awarded the ID/IQ contract to Halifax on March 21,
1997. Halifax Contract, Standard Form 33. As discussed in some detail below,
the RFP required Halifax to engineer, furnish, and install (EF&I) systems
and equipment including the Command, Control, Communications Computers and
Intelligence (C4I) systems and equipment for customers supported by the TAO.
Halifax Contract sect. C.1, at 32. The contract covered project management,
engineering, material acquisition and logistics support, system design,
equipment integration and configuration management support, operation,
maintenance, and on-site support and maintenance. Halifax Contract, EF&I
Servs. Statement of Work (SOW), sect.sect. 1.3-1.3.9, at 2-4. On-site support and
maintenance services "entail[ed] the EF&I and system management requirements
. . . [to] be ordered on a monthly basis." Id sect. 1.3.8, at 4. In addition,
under its contract, Halifax was required to engineer, furnish, and install a
wide range of communications equipment or systems as required by the agency,
for example, "LAN/WAN (Local Area Network/Wide Area Network) systems." Id.
sect.sect. 4.1-4.9, at 5-6.

Halifax was required to have qualified managerial and technical personnel
available for the "contract and related task orders." Halifax Contract sect.
C.3, at 32. Id. As relevant here, the project manager, task leader, and
system engineers were required to have "the ability to plan, direct, and
administer complex engineering and installation programs involving all
aspects of secure digital, analog, and radio frequency technologies." Id. sect.sect.
C.3.3-C.3.6, at 34-36. The computer systems analyst II was required to be
able to install software, build databases, and configure software; was to
have had experience in configuration management; and was to have performed
on-site system analysis, network configuration, fault isolation,
troubleshooting, and/or administration of a digital network or LAN/WAN. Id.
sect. C.3.8, at 36-37.

The Halifax contract was modified several times. Of relevance here,
modification No. 10, issued on August 18, 1999, added two labor categories
for the Washington, D.C. area: senior network project engineer and network
project engineer. Modification No. 10. These two individuals were required
to obtain certifications as Microsoft Certified Systems Engineers (MCSE).
Each was required to have experience in planning, configuring, and
maintaining LAN/WAN systems involving security, shared system resources,
networks and combinations of hardware and software applications.
Modification No. 10, at 39 (as revised).

Delivery order No. 47, issued to Halifax on February 22, 2000, primarily
called for a network engineer to provide system administration, system and
network engineering, configuration management, technical assistance,
troubleshooting, and support for network administration and associated
components installed under the TAO BSMIS project. Delivery Order No. 47, SOW
sect. 2.0, at 2. The order called for technical support and troubleshooting
assistance for Microsoft software products. The order required Halifax to
provide 2,050 hours of technical support from the date of award; an
additional 24 months of work would be awarded if funds were available.
Delivery Order No. 47, DD Form 1155, at 1 and SOW sect.sect. 4.1, 2.0, and 3.0, at
2-3;
Supplemental Agency Report, Tab 1, Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement, at
2.

Unaware of modification No. 10 at the time it filed its original protest,
Paragon contended that delivery order No. 47 was beyond the scope of
Halifax's original contract because this contract simply provided for
Halifax to engineer, furnish, and install hardware and to furnish initial
support, primarily for hardware and only incidentally for software and, in
any event, provided for services only until the hardware was accepted by the
government. Upon receiving the initial agency report containing the
modification, Paragon argued that the modification calls for network
engineer services relating primarily to software services that were not
within the scope of the original contract.

The agency states that modification No. 10 to Halifax's contract simply adds
"a higher level of the type of work" already in that contract. Supplemental
Agency Report, Tab 1, CO Statement, at 1-2. The agency describes the
delivery order as a detailed requirement for a full-time network engineer to
perform a number of tasks to upgrade BSMIS, for example, by making
connections to certain high-speed telephone lines using a variety of
switching protocols, by changing systems interfaces, and by obtaining
security certifications. The agency, referencing the EF&I SOW provisions in
the Halifax contract, notes that these provisions address upgrading,
relocating, expanding or installing communications equipment systems, and
providing a wide range of engineering assistance.

Once a contract is awarded, our Office will generally not review
modifications to that contract because such matters are related to contract
administration and are beyond the scope of our bid protest function. 4
C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a) (2000); MCI Telecomms. Corp., B-276659.2, Sept. 29, 1997,
97-2 CPD para. 90 at 7. The exception to this rule is where it is alleged that a
contract modification is beyond the scope of the original contract, since
the work covered by the modification would otherwise be subject to the
requirement in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 10 U.S.C.
sect. 2304(a)(1)(A) (1994), for competition (absent a valid determination that
the work is appropriate for procurement on a sole-source basis). MCI
Telecomms. Corp., supra.

In determining whether a modification triggers the competition requirement
in CICA, we look to whether there is a material difference between the
modified contract and the contract that was originally awarded. Sprint
Communications Co., B-278407.2, Feb. 13, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 60 at 6. Evidence
of a material difference between the modification and the original contract
is found by examining any changes in the type of work, performance period,
and costs between the contract as awarded and as modified. Id. We also
consider whether the solicitation for the original contract adequately
advised offerors of the potential for the type of change found in the
modification or whether the modification is of a nature which potential
offerors would reasonably have anticipated at the time of the original
award.
MCI Telecomms. Corp., supra, at 8. Based on a review of the original Halifax
contract, we conclude that the modification, and thus the delivery order,
were within the scope of the original contract.

In this regard, we conclude that the protester disregards the software
installation and integration work in the original contract. As stated above,
the SOW in the Halifax contract calls for a broad range of services for
"telecommunication, computer, automation, C4I equipment/systems/ . . .
networks." Halifax Contract, EF&I Servs. SOW, sect. 1, at 32. There is no
indication that the services under the original contract were limited to
hardware, as the protester suggests. The contract lists labor categories
where the designated personnel will install and configure software. For
example, the computer systems analyst II description provides that the
individual "[m]ust have performed on-site system analysis, network
configuration, fault isolation, troubleshooting, and or administration of a
digital network, or LAN/WAN [and] . . . [m]ust have . . . ability to install
software, build database, and configure network software." Id. sect. C.3.8, at
36-37. Several other labor categories require personnel to have networking
and communications experience, including working with software. The systems
engineer labor category description specifically calls for the individual to
have the ability "to design, engineer, install, maintain, upgrade and
customize communications system/equipment and . . . [LAN/WANS] and related
services," and "the ability to plan, direct, and administer complex
engineering and installation programs involving all aspects of secure
digital, network communications . . . ." Id. sect. C.3.6, at 36. There is very
similar language in the contract job descriptions for the project manager,
task leader, senior systems engineer, and engineer.

We agree with the agency that the descriptions of the network project
engineer and network engineer labor categories as added to the contract by
modification No. 10 are similar, if not identical, to the descriptions
contained in the original contract. For example, network engineers are
required to show the ability to plan, direct, configure and maintain large
scale LAN/WAN networks involving aspects of security, shared resources,
networks and combinations of hardware and software applications. Id. sect.sect.
C.3.16, C.3.17. This language closely tracks the Halifax contract
descriptions for system engineers, as quoted above.

Further, we do not view the MCSE requirement as rendering the modification
out of scope with respect to the original contract. As the protester
recognizes in its own reference to the MCSE certification description, the
MCSE is "for professionals who analyze the business requirements for a
system architecture, design solutions, deploy, install, and configure
architecture components, and troubleshoot system problems." Protester's
Comments, exh. C, MCSE Requirements from Microsoft Corporation Website.
Again, the description is not meaningfully different from the SOW job
descriptions in the original contract quoted above. Moreover, the agency
reports, and the protester does not meaningfully rebut, that any
telecommunications system has some aspect of software installation and
maintenance. Agency Report, exh. F, Memorandum from Chief, TAO Management
and Engineering Division to Chief, Technical Contracting Division at 3 (Mar.
15, 2000). As discussed above, the original contract required a wide range
of services relating to communications systems, including installation and
configuration of network software.

In view of the broad scope of the original Halifax contract, which
explicitly includes software installation and the configuration of network
software, we think the network engineering services, including software
support, are within the scope of the initial contract. Further, since
Halifax's original contract calls for "integration of
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment/systems to provide the functional
services requested by the Government," the requirement that the network
engineer have the ability to work with Microsoft products is reasonably
within the scope of the original contract. Halifax Contract, EF&I Servs.
SOW, sect. 1, at 1. In short, we think the modification is within the scope of
the original contract, and therefore the delivery order is unobjectionable.
[1]

We deny the protest.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Paragon also argues that the "On-Site and Maintenance" provision in
Halifax's contract limits Halifax to providing "operations, maintenance,
troubleshooting and repair of equipment/systems prior to Government
acceptance," and that under the protested order, the services relate to
systems already accepted by the government. Protester's Comments, exh. F, at
F-3. The other provision cited by the protester allows for on-site support,
including "EF&I and system management requirements . . .[to] be ordered on a
monthly basis." Halifax Contract, EF&I Servs. SOW, sect. 1.3.8, at 4. Without
resolving how acceptance is determined under the contract or a particular
order, we note that the original contract clearly contemplates months of
support and maintenance work, since it provided, as noted above, for that
work to be ordered on a monthly basis.

In addition, the protester points out that the contract calls for pricing on
a monthly basis, while the prices in the order are priced on an hourly
basis. A total quantity of hours was included in the order and was
multiplied by the hourly rate to obtain a total price. While a monthly price
was not established, we do not think this is a ground for sustaining the
protest. The vendor's price for the work was provided in the order. The fact
that the order prices the work based on total hours, rather than on a
monthly basis, while arguably inconsistent with the original contract, is a
matter of contract administration that does not render the services ordered
out-of-scope.