TITLE:  Anteon Corporation, B-293523; B-293523.2, March 29, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293523; B-293523.2
DATE:  March 29, 2004
**********************************************************************
Anteon Corporation, B-293523; B-293523.2, March 29, 2004

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Anteon Corporation
    
File:            B-293523; B-293523.2
    
Date:              March 29, 2004
    
John R. Tolle, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon,
Hildebrant & Tolle, for the protester.
Maria Bellizzi, Esq., General Services Administration, and Jennifer R.
Seifert, Esq., Government Printing Office, for the agencies.
Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest that task order request for electronic passport covers is outside
the scope of General Services Administration*s (GSA) indefinite
delivery/indefinite quantity, multiple-award contract for *Smart
Identification Cards* (Smart Card) is sustained, where GSA*s Smart Card
contract contemplates the purchase of credit card-sized plastic cards,
while the task order here contemplates the purchase of cloth cover sheets
for electronic passports with embedded integrated circuit chip inlays that
are significantly larger in size than a Smart Card and are manufactured
using different materials; task order requirements for adhesive and travel
are also not included in GSA*s Smart Card contract.
DECISION
    

   Anteon Corporation protests the issuance of task order request (TOR) No.
BA24076GPS by the General Services Administration (GSA) for electronic
passport covers under the agency*s *Smart Identification Card* (Smart
Card) contact. Anteon contends that electronic passport covers are outside
the scope of the Smart Card contract.
    

   We sustain the protest.
    
BACKGROUND
    
The Smart Card contract is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity
(ID/IQ) contract, issued by GSA, for the *supplies and services necessary
to support a common, interoperable, multi-application Smart Card
program.*  Smart Card Solicitation S: C.3.  The Smart Card program is a
cooperative effort under the leadership of GSA and a steering committee
comprised of federal civilian, defense, and intelligence communities.  The
program is described as a *first step* in addressing a *growing concern
related to the security and safety of government personnel, buildings,
systems, and other facilities,* and in addressing the *need for the
Federal government to provide the necessary tools and safeguards to
support the burgeoning growth in electronic commerce.*  Id. S: C.1(a). 
The Smart Card program is available for use by *all authorized activities
that have received written delegated ordering authority from [GSA].* 
These activities, *[a]t a minimum,* may use the Smart Card as a *Federal
employee, Armed Services, military dependent or federal beneficiary
identification card.*  Id. S: C.3. 
    
The Smart Card contract provides for award of task or delivery orders for
Smart Card solutions that, among other things, *support visual
identification, physical access control and logical access control
functions on a single card.*  Id. S: C.5(b).  The Smart Card is defined to
be a *Credit Size Card with an integrated chip* that is 3.370 inches wide,
2.125 inches high, and 0.030 inches thick.  Id. S:S: C.2(d), J.7.[1] 
    
The Smart Card contract contemplates that the Smart Card will *encompass a
broad range of applications.*  Id. S: C.4(a).  The actual configuration of
the Smart Card system is expected to vary from organization to
organization depending on agency needs and other factors, but certain
*generic components* are to be part of every Smart Card platform:  an
integrated circuit (IC) chip card that *may utilize multiple technologies
and have varying capabilities,* a central card management system, card
issuing equipment including computers and peripherals, a
certificate/attribute authority system, a card acceptance device,
applications, and interfaces to legacy databases.  Id. S: C.5(a); see also
id. S: C.4(a) (*Conceptually,* the services shall consist of cards, card
readers, and driver software).  In addition, the contract provides for a
*customized selection* of various Smart Card functions, services, and
applications *[t]o meet the specific circumstances and to enhance an
organization*s Smart Card Program.*  Id. S: C.5.  These services include
providing such things as a card security and inventory control system,
program integration and management, standard reporting, and card holder
services.  Id. S: C.5(e)(3)(5), (7), (8).   
    
The TOR, issued on November 21, 2003 to four Smart Card contractors, seeks
delivery of embedded IC chips into electronic passport covers.  These
items will be used by the Department of State, in cooperation with the
Government Printing Office (GPO) and the Department of Homeland Security,
for a *new version of the United States passport,* envisioned as part of
an electronic passport program.[2]  As stated in the TOR, the *new
technology is expected to enhance the security of the passport and
facilitate the movement of travelers at ports of entry.*  The contactless
IC chip and antenna inlay in passports will incorporate both digital
facial images and biographic data of the bearer.  TOR S: C1.1. 
    
The TOR contemplates delivery under various contract line item numbers
(CLINs) of 650 *testing inlays* (containing an ISO 14443 Type A and B
compliant[3] contactless chip and antenna assembly), and up to
approximately 54 million electronic passport cover sheets, 1,000
electronic passport readers, 250 55-gallon drums of adhesive, and 4,000
hours of technical support, an inventory control system, and travel[4] as
necessary to meet the government*s requirements.  Id. S:S: B.3; C.5.  The
passport cover sheets are made of cloth and are 7 1/16 inches wide, 15 7/8
inches high, and 0.35 inches thick.  Each cover sheet will be cut to
create three book covers containing an inlay.[5]  Id. app. C.  The inlay
is to consist of a pre-laminate material (such as Durasoft/P(R))
containing the IC chip/antenna assembly and will span the entire book
cover (front and back), with the IC chip/antenna assembly positioned so
that it will be located in the back cover of the completed book.  Id.
S: C8.2.3.
    
Anteon timely protested the terms of the TOR, contending that the supplies
to be provided under the TOR are outside the scope of the Smart Card
contract.[6]
    
DISCUSSION
    
The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) generally requires *full and
open competition* in government procurements as obtained through the use
of competitive procedures.  41 U.S.C. S: 253(a)(1)(A) (2000).  With
respect to single-award, stand-alone contracts, our Office generally will
not review modifications to those contracts, because such matters are
related to contract administration and are beyond the scope of GAO*s bid
protest function.  4 C.F.R. S: 21.5(a); MCI Telecomms. Corp.,
B‑276659.2, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD P: 90 at 7.  With respect to
multiple-award contracts, task or delivery orders placed against those
contracts also are generally outside our bid protest jurisdiction--but for
a different reason.  In this area, Congress has decided that the issuance
of task or delivery orders against multiple-award contracts will not be
subject to bid protest review.  41 U.S.C. S: 253j(d) (2000); see also,
Corel Corp., B‑283862, Nov. 18, 1999, 99-2 CPD P: 90 at 1. 
    
An exception to our rule about reviewing modifications to a contract--and
to the statutory bar to our review of task or delivery orders placed
against multiple-award contracts--is where it is alleged that the
modification--or the task or delivery order--is beyond the scope of the
contract originally awarded.  MCI Telecomms. Corp., supra. (modifications
to single-award contracts); 41 U.S.C. S: 253j(d) (task and delivery orders
under multiple-award contracts).  This is because the work covered by the
modification (or task or delivery order) would otherwise be subject to the
statutory requirement for competition (absent a valid determination that
the work is appropriate for procurement on a sole source basis).  MCI
Telecomms. Corp., supra. (contract modifications); Erwin & Assocs., Inc.,
B-278850, Mar. 23, 1998, 98-1 CPD P: 89 at 7 (task or delivery orders).
    
In determining whether either of these actions (a modification, or the
issuance of a task or delivery order) is beyond the scope of the original
contract, the same analysis applies--i.e., GAO looks to whether there is a
material difference between the modification (or task or delivery order)
and the original contract.  See, e.g., MCI Telecomms. Corp., supra.
(modifications); Erwin & Assocs., Inc., supra (task or delivery orders). 
Evidence of such a material difference is found by reviewing the
circumstances attending the procurement that was conducted; any changes in
the type of work, performance period, and costs between the contract as
awarded and the modification (or task or delivery order); and the
potential for the type of modification (or task or delivery order)
issued.  Floro & Assocs., B-285451.3, B‑285451.4, Oct. 25, 2000,
2000 CPD P: 172 at 6; Data Transformation Corp., B-274629, Dec. 19, 1996,
97-1 CPD P: 10 at 6.  The overall inquiry is whether the modification (or
task or delivery order) is of a nature which potential offerors would
reasonably have anticipated.  Floro & Assocs., supra.
    
Anteon complains that the TOR here anticipates a materially different
physical form and breadth of distribution than the Smart Card contract, as
well as additional items and services found nowhere in the contract.  For
example, Anteon argues that the cloth passport covers required under the
TOR are of a different size and material than the Smart Cards under the
ID/IQ contract.  In addition, Anteon complains that the TOR provides for
the issuance of passport covers to be incorporated into passports
distributed to all passport-holding private citizens, whereas the Smart
Card contract anticipates the issuance of identification cards only to
government employees, military dependents and federal beneficiaries. 
Furthermore, Anteon argues, other ancillary requirements of the TOR, such
as adhesive or travel, are not contemplated at all under the Smart Card
contract. 
    
GSA replies that its Smart Card contract is intended to be broad and
flexible so as to contemplate the incorporation of Smart Card technology
into an electronic passport cover.  For the reasons set for the below, we
disagree.
    
At the outset, we recognize certain functional similarities between the
Smart Card contract and the TOR.  As GSA explains, an electronic passport
cover is essentially an identification document that is not materially
different in function from a *Smart Identification Card*; both are used to
electronically identify the bearer.  Although it is true the Smart Card
contract does not expressly identify travel and border crossings as an
applicable use, it does identify physical access and control as a required
function, which is also a function of the electronic passport.  Despite
the presence of certain functional similarities, however, we do not agree
that the physical deliverables sought under the TOR here reasonably fall
within the scope of GSA*s Smart Card contract, nor do we agree that
offerors that are able to manufacture the chip‑embedded passport
covers at issue here--and might have wished to compete for a contract to
do that--could have reasonably foreseen the purchase of these items under
GSA*s Smart Card contract.
    
As noted above, the Smart Card contract identified an IC chip card, card
readers, driver software, and support services, such as a card security
and inventory control system, and program integration and management
services.  In contrast, the TOR seeks to procure IC chip inlays, cloth
passport covers, passport readers, adhesive, an inventory control system,
travel, and technical support for such things as development, testing, and
operations.  Of these requirements, only the readers, technical support,
and inventory control system appear to be within the scope of the Smart
Card contract, which identifies similar (or identical) deliverables.  The
remaining items--the passport covers, IC chip inlays, adhesive, and
travel--are outside the scope of the contract for the reasons discussed
below.   
    
With regard to the passport covers and IC chip inlays, we note significant
physical differences between the TOR and the Smart Card contract.  The
Smart Card contract specifies that the IC chip card (i.e., Smart Card)
shall be a credit card-sized plastic plate that complies with the
standards for such cards.  In this regard, the Smart Card*s dimensions,
and the materials used for its manufacture, are considerably different
from those of the cloth electronic passport cover sheet (with inlay) at
issue here.  Although GSA argues that the inlays are physically the same
as the Smart Card because the inlay consists of a pre-laminate IC chip
with antenna (as does the Smart Card), we note that the inlay itself bears
no resemblance to a plastic plate, even before it is affixed to a cloth
passport cover, which is also included in this purchase.  Moreover, the
TOR contemplates the purchase of only 650 stand-alone inlays, with the
remainder embedded into as many as 162 million passport covers.  Simply
put, we do not think that potential contractors for the manufacture of
cloth passport covers with electronic inlays could have anticipated the
use of the original Smart Card contract for this purpose.[7]  
    
In addition to the physical differences between the plastic plates
envisioned by the Smart Card contract, and the inlays to be used in the
passport covers here, the TOR includes peripheral goods and services,
including adhesive and travel, which cannot reasonably be found to be
within the scope of GSA*s Smart Card contract.  In addition, these items
appear to be of more than nominal value.  As noted above, the TOR
contemplates the purchase of sufficient adhesive to adhere approximately
162 million book covers to the end page (or 54 million book cover sheets),
plus additional adhesive necessary for spoilage.  This equates to more
than 250 55-gallon drums of liquid adhesive.  TOR at B-13.  The TOR does
not specify the amount of travel contemplated, but given the 3-phases of
the electronic passport program (systems development, pilot program
implementation, and full-scale implementation throughout the United
States), which includes up to 4,000 hours of technical services,
ultimately leading to the production of millions of passports, travel
under this TOR does not appear to be insignificant.
    
For the reasons identified above, we conclude that the TOR is outside the
scope of the Smart Card contract.  We recommend that GSA cancel the TOR
and either hold a competition for these services, or prepare the
appropriate justification required by CICA for other than full and open
competition.  We also recommend that the protester be reimbursed the
reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys*
fees.  4 C.F.R. S: 21.8(d)(1).  In accordance with 4. C.F.R.
S: 21.8(f)(1), Anteon*s certified claim for such costs, detailing the time
expended and the costs incurred, must be submitted directly to GSA within
60 days after receipt of this decision.
    
The protest is sustained.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] Section J.7 of the Smart Card contract identifies International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14443 as a *required standard.* 
This standard specifies that the physical characteristics of the card are
governed by ISO 7810, which identifies the dimensions listed above.  See
ISO 7810 P: 4.5 and Figure 1.  ISO is a non-governmental network of the
national standards institutes of 148 countries that establishes a system
of technical standards for various products and services.  See
www.iso.ch/iso/en/aoutiso/introduction/index.html.
[2] The electronic passport program is to be implemented in three phases,
associated with the base performance requirements, and two options.  The
first phase provides for delivery to GPO of embedded inlays, associated
testing materials, and readers, for system development and testing.  The
second and third phases provide for a pilot program and full-scale
distribution of the electronic passport covers with the embedded inlays,
with the goal of issuing all new electronic passports by the end of 2005. 
TOR S:S: C1.2, C.5.1‑C.5.3; Electronic Passport Program Overview at
C-6. 
[3] The TOR specifies that the IC chip and antenna assembly are to meet
the tolerance limits for exposure to the various electromagnetic,
physical, mechanical affects, and similar requirements described in ISO
14443.  TOR S: C.8.2.3.  The dimensions set forth in ISO 14443 and 7810
(discussed above in connection with the Smart Card contract) are not
applicable to the TOR, because the size of the electronic passport cover
is specified elsewhere in the TOR.
[4] The TOR contemplates award of a fixed-price delivery order for all
CLINs except for technical support (which is to be priced on a
time-and-materials basis) and travel (which is cost reimbursable).  TOR S:
B1.2. 
[5] Thus, the approximately 54 million cover sheets will result in 162
million book covers.
[6] After receipt of the agency report, Anteon supplemented its initial
protest with more specific examples of how the supplies to be provided
under the TOR are outside the scope of the Smart Card contract.  GSA
contends that these *new* grounds are untimely, as the information upon
which they were based, namely the Smart Card contract, was available on
the internet and should have been known to Anteon in advance of its
initial protest.  However, Anteon asserts it was not privy to the contract
until it was provided in the agency report, and the Internet cites
indicated by GSA do not, in fact, provide the actual language of the Smart
Card contracts.  Thus, we find that Anteon*s supplemental protest, which
was filed within 10 days of receipt of the agency report, is timely.  See
4 C.F.R. S: 21.2(a)(2) (2003).
[7] In addition, it is not clear that offerors could have anticipated the
use of the Smart Card contract for a pool of users as broad as all
passport-holding private citizens, since the Smart Card contract appears
to limit potential recipients to *Federal employee[s], Armed Services,
military dependent[s], or Federal beneficiar[ies].*  Smart Card
Solicitation S: C.3.  Thus, the TOR may reach beyond the scope of the
Smart Card contract in this regard as well.  See Floro & Assocs., supra.