TITLE: B-297121, Cartographics, LLC, November 15, 2005
BNUMBER: B-297121
DATE: November 15, 2005
***********************************************
B-297121, Cartographics, LLC, November 15, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: Cartographics, LLC

   File: B-297121

   Date: November 15, 2005

   Kevin W. McCann and Diana McCann for the protester.

   Samar A. Shams, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

   Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that agency should have issued task order for digital conversion
   of maps to protester under its multiple-award
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for cartographic
   services, rather than to awardee under its architect/ engineering services
   ID/IQ contract, is dismissed; GAO lacks jurisdiction to consider issuance
   of task order against ID/IQ contract.

   DECISION

   Cartographics, LLC protests the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest
   Service's issuance of a task order to Photo Science, Inc. under
   indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract
   No. 53-84N8-5-001, for digital conversion of maps of the Targhee National
   Forest. Cartographics contends that the agency improperly selected Photo
   Science despite Cartographics' lower price.

   We dismiss the protest for lack of jurisdiction.

   On October 1, 2003, the Forest Service made awards to Cartographics and
   four other firms under ID/IQ contract No. 53-05G2-4-0004. This contract,
   for professional cartographic services, required the agency to purchase a
   minimum of $3,000 worth of services per year from Cartographics. A little
   over a year later, the Forest Service awarded contracts for geographic
   information system (GIS) services--including services such as data
   conversion, integration, and processing, as well as database linking and
   other GIS database services--to Photo Science and another firm under ID/IQ
   contract No. 53-84N8-5-001, pursuant to the architect and engineering
   procedures found in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 36.6. The
   two contracts covered different regions of the United States; Photo
   Science's contract covered the Targhee National Forest.

   On February 22, 2005, the Forest Service requested a quotation from Photo
   Science under its ID/IQ contract for the services at issue. Photo Science
   responded with a price of $138,199, which subsequently was reduced to
   $115,293 following removal of certain services from the requirement.
   Shortly thereafter, in an attempt to determine whether other firms could
   provide the services at a lower price, the agency requested quotations
   from Cartographics and the four other cartographic services contractors.
   Cartographics responded with a price of $11,036 (one other firm responded,
   but that firm's quotation is not relevant here). On August 15, the agency
   issued the task order to Photo Science. Cartographics filed an
   agency-level protest and then, before receiving the agency's response,
   filed this protest in our Office. Cartographics challenges the agency's
   decision to make award to a higher-priced contractor.

   Our Office generally does not have jurisdiction to entertain a protest
   challenging the issuance of a task order. In this regard, 10 U.S.C. sect.
   2304c(d) (2000) provides that "[a] protest is not authorized in connection
   with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order except
   for a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or
   maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued." The
   protester does not allege in its protest that the task order at issue
   increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which
   it was issued; accordingly, the protest does not fit within the exception
   provided in the statute, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review the
   matter. See N&N Travel & Tours, Inc. et al., B-285164.2, B-285164.3, Aug.
   31, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 146 at 4.

   We are aware that the circumstances here are somewhat different from those
   in prior cases where we found no jurisdiction; in those cases, the
   protester typically was challenging issuance of a task or delivery order
   to another multiple award contract holder under the same ID/IQ contract,
   whereas here, two different ID/IQ contracts are involved and Cartographics
   is challenging issuance of the task order under Photo Science's contract
   rather than under its own. However, this distinction does not change our
   decision. It remains that the focus of Cartographics' protest is a
   challenge to the agency's decision to issue a task order under an ID/IQ
   contract, with the dispute centering on which firm should receive the task
   order. Section 2304c(d) contains no exception to the general limitation on
   our jurisdiction based on the number of ID/IQ contracts involved in a
   challenge.[1]

   Cartographics also asserts that the award was improper because, according
   to the terms of its contract, all cartographic requirements were to be
   purchased under the cartographic services ID/IQ contract. However, the
   question of whether the terms of Cartographics' contract required the
   agency to purchase the services here under that contract is a matter of
   contract administration, and therefore is not for our consideration. 4
   C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a) (2005); Hawker Eternacell, Inc., B-283586, Nov. 23,
   1999, 99-2 CPD para. 96 at 3.

   The protest is dismissed.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The Forest Service interprets our decision in AudioCARE Sys.,
   B-283985, Jan. 31, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 24 at 3 n.2, as indicating that
   our Office has jurisdiction to review the protest here. There, however,
   the competition was not limited to ID/IQ contract holders. Since a
   contract could have been awarded (i.e., if the non-ID/IQ contractor were
   selected), we found that the case fell outside the jurisdictional
   limitation. This is not the case here, where both vendors are ID/IQ
   contractors, and a task order would be issued regardless of which
   quotation were selected for award.