GCE protested task order modifications issued to a competitor (QSS) under a Coast Guard software services contract. The court found that two modifications added work outside the original contract scope—specifically, audit-supporting financial management systems—which should have been competitively bid instead of sole-sourced to the existing contractor. This ruling matters to subcontractors because it shows courts will block contract modifications that secretly expand scope beyond what was originally competed.
Watch for scope creep in task order modifications. If new work is substantially different from the original contract, it may need to be competitively bid, not added as a modification.
Document what work was included in the original bid and contract. If modifications add new types of services or systems, challenge them early—courts will side with protesters who can prove scope exceeded the original award.
Bid protests can succeed even after modifications are issued. If you see a competitor getting sole-source add-ons that look like new work, you have grounds to protest and potentially block the modification.