TITLE: B-400405, Carahsoft Technologies Corporation and Avue Technologies Corporation, August 4, 2008
BNUMBER: B-400405
DATE: August 4, 2008
**********************************************************************************************
B-400405, Carahsoft Technologies Corporation and Avue Technologies Corporation, August 4, 2008
Decision
Matter of: Carahsoft Technologies Corporation and Avue Technologies
Corporation
File: B-400405
Date: August 4, 2008
Mark Fox Evens, Esq., Byron L. Pickard, Esq., and Justin T. Sher, Esq.,
Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, for the protester.
Virginia Farrier, Esq., Adeel Ahmed, Esq., and David R. Cutler, Esq.,
Transportation Security Administration, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Pursuant to statutory and regulatory limitations on this Office's
jurisdiction to hear protests challenging Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) procurements, this Office will not consider a protest
challenging a TSA procurement conducted in connection with a solicitation
issued prior to June 23, 2008.
DECISION
Carahsoft Technologies Corporation and Avue Technologies Corporation
(Carahsoft/Avue) protest the Transportation Security Administration's
(TSA) award of a contract to Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc.
pursuant to solicitation No. HSTS01-08-HRM010. The solicitation was issued
by TSA on October 18, 2007, seeking a contractor to provide various human
resource services. Carahsoft/Avue protest various aspects of the agency's
source selection decision.
We dismiss the protest.
In 2001 Congress enacted the Aviation Transportation Security Act,
relevant portions of which are set forth at 49 U.S.C. sect. 114 (2004
Supp.), establishing the TSA as a new agency within the Department of
Transportation and tasking it with broad transportation security
responsibilities. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. sect. 40110(d) (2005 Supp.), TSA
procurements were subject to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
acquisition management system and, because the statute also stipulated
that procurements under that system are exempt from our bid protest
jurisdiction, TSA procurements were not subject to protests filed at our
Office pursuant to TSA's organic legislation.[1]
Recent legislation effectively revised this Office's jurisdiction over
protests challenging TSA procurements. Specifically, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008 (CAA), Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, was
enacted on December 26, 2007. That law repealed TSA's authority to use the
FAA's acquisition management system, made TSA subject to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and effectively provided jurisdiction for
our Office to consider protests challenging TSA procurements. The CAA
further provided that the changes flowing from that legislation "shall
take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act." 121 Stat.
2092. There is no dispute that June 23, 2008 was the 180^th day following
enactment of the CAA.
In implementing the CAA's legislative changes, the DHS published a rule
providing that TSA acquisitions initiated after June 22, 2008 would be
subject to the FAR. 73 Fed. Reg. 30,317 (2008). Similarly, and consistent
with the DHS rule, this Office published proposed changes to our Bid
Protest Regulations in March 2008 and, on June 9, 2008, issued the final
rule changes, stating: "In light of the revised DHS regulations pertaining
to the applicability of the FAR to TSA procurements, and in the interest
of an orderly transition by TSA to FAR-based procurements, GAO will hear
protests of TSA procurements covered by TSA solicitations issued on or
after June 23." 73 Fed. Reg. 32,429.
Here, Carahsoft/Avue's protest challenges the award of a contract to
Lockheed pursuant to a solicitation that was issued by TSA on October 18,
2007--that is, more than 2 months prior to enactment of the CAA and more
than 8 months prior to the effective date of that legislation. Among other
things, Carahsoft/Avue's protest complains that, according to a July 3,
2008 press release, TSA intends to improperly increase the scope of
services Lockheed will perform beyond the services contemplated by the
solicitation, specifically to include performance of human resource
services at DHS headquarters.
We view the protest, including the argument regarding the scope of the
services to be performed, as challenging TSA's actions pursuant to the
October 18 solicitation[2] and, as such, outside of our jurisdiction. In
short, consistent with the legislative provisions of TSA's organic
legislation, as subsequently amended by the CAA, along with this Office's
announcement that we would begin hearing protests challenging TSA
procurements covered by TSA solicitations issued on or after June 23, our
protest jurisdiction does not extend to Carhsoft/Avue's protest which
challenges TSA's contract award pursuant to a solicitation issued prior to
June 23.
The protest is dismissed.[3]
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] In 2002, TSA was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 116
Stat. 2135, 2173 (2002); however, that Act did not alter TSA's authority
to conduct procurements pursuant to the FAA's acquisition management
system or TSA's exemption from our bid protest jurisdiction.
[2] Carahsoft/Avue's protest specifically states that it is "protest[ing]
the Transportation Security Administration's (`TSA') July 7, 2008 award of
the contract to Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc. (`Lockheed')
based on Solicitation No. HSTS01-08-HRM010 (`Solicitation') for the
Integrated Hiring Operations & Personnel (`IHOP') issued by TSA on October
18, 2007." Protest at 1-2.
[3] We note that the protester states that:
Insofar as the GAO lacks jurisdiction and such jurisdiction instead is
possessed by the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition at the
Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), Carahsoft/Avue has, out of an
abundance of caution and to preserve its rights, filed a substantially
identical protest with the FAA.
Protest at 7-8.