Posted

Inside the Scope, Outside the Court: Task Order Protest Dismissed on Jurisdictional Ground

by

In United Aero Group, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-248 (September 29, 2025), United Aero Group, LLC challenged the Department of State’s decision to direct AAR Government Services, Inc. to perform helicopter maintenance work at a Florida facility under an existing task order. United Aero argued that the agency had violated both the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) and the Rule of Two by assigning the work to AAR without opening it to competition or reserving it for small businesses. The Court, however, found that it lacked jurisdiction over the protest, and that the Rule of Two did not apply to the agency’s technical direction under the task order.

The Decision
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissed the protest, ruling that:

  1. Task Order Challenge Dismissed Under FASA Bar: The Court held that United Aero’s challenge fell squarely within the task order protest bar of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), which prohibits the Court of Federal Claims from hearing protests “in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order,” unless the protest alleges that the task order increases the scope, period or maximum value of the underlying contract. United Aero claimed the new work fell outside both AAR’s IDIQ and task order but the Court disagreed, finding that both clearly contemplated ongoing, evolving helicopter maintenance services across multiple locations. As a result, the Court dismissed the claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
  2. The Work Was Within the Scope of the Task Order: United Aero argued that the AAR task order limited the locations in which program maintenance work could take place to Panama, Costa Rica, Peru, Iraq and the Patrick Space Force Base in Cocoa Beach, Florida. As such, it argued that the challenged work that AAR performed at the Orlando Sanford International Airport exceeded the scope of AAR’s IDIQ contract and the task order. The Court disagreed, finding that flexible language in both the IDIQ and the task order, including references to changing fleet locations and mission systems, signaled that maintenance services could shift as needed. The AAR IDIQ contract explicitly covered “all levels of helicopter maintenance,” and the Court took judicial notice that Sanford, Florida (the new location), falls within the contract’s reference to work being performed in “Central Florida.”
  3. Rule of Two Didn’t Apply to Technical Direction: United Aero also argued that the agency violated the Rule of Two by moving work from its small business set-aside contract to AAR’s large business vehicle. But the Court found that the Rule of Two, which requires certain acquisitions to be set aside for small businesses if there’s a reasonable expectation that two or more can compete, does not apply to in-scope technical directions under existing task orders. The Court emphasized that directing AAR to perform the work did not constitute a new procurement or modification and thus no new Rule of Two analysis was required.

Key Takeaways for Contractors

  1. Task Order Protests Have Strict Jurisdictional Limits: Under FASA, the Court of Federal Claims cannot hear protests that challenge in-scope task orders, unless the protest shows the agency materially changed the contract’s scope, period or ceiling.
  2. Flexible SOW Language Cuts Against Scope Arguments: Agencies often include language in task orders and IDIQs allowing for changing locations, fleet sizes and mission requirements. Courts will take that language seriously and use it to dismiss arguments that added work was “out of scope.”
  3. Rule of Two Does Not Apply Without New Solicitation or Modification: If the agency is issuing a new solicitation, the Rule of Two must be considered. But when simply redirecting work under an existing task order, even if that task order is held by a large business, the Rule of Two does not apply.
  4. Reminder for Small Business Contractors: If you’re a small business trying to protect set-aside work, pay close attention to how the original IDIQ was structured. If the government has discretion to shift work under broad terms, it may do so without recompeting it, and protests are unlikely to succeed.