BPAs Are Flexible, Not Unlimited: What Ares Enterprise Teaches About Order Scope
Blanket Purchase Agreements have become increasingly attractive acquisition tools because they allow agencies to establish pools of qualified vendors and place future orders with considerably more flexibility than many traditional contracting structures. But flexibility does not mean unlimited ordering authority.
That distinction is highlighted by two recent developments. In the September 2026 Nash & Cibinic Report, Ralph C. Nash examined the growing use of BPAs, prompted in part by GSA’s planned five-year, $700 million Next-Generation IT Solutions procurement. Nash observes that BPAs can offer agencies significant administrative flexibility, including avoiding the minimum-order obligations associated with multiple-award IDIQ contracts.
A recent GAO decision demonstrates the other side of that flexibility.
In Ares Enterprise, LLC, B-424548 et al., GAO sustained a protest involving a Space Force order under the Enterprise Information Technology as a Service Wave 1 Federal Supply Schedule BPA. Ares argued that the work ordered from another BPA participant exceeded both the scope of the BPA and the awardee’s underlying Schedule contract.
GAO agreed. The BPA described services supporting specified functions, but the challenged order included services that GAO determined were broader and materially different. GAO separately found that the agency had not validly established that the ordered work fell within the awardee’s underlying FSS contract and applicable labor categories.
That produces an important two-level compliance question for contractors pursuing Schedule BPAs.
Being within the apparent subject matter of a BPA is not necessarily enough. The order must fit within the competed scope of the BPA, but the contractor must also possess an underlying Schedule contract that encompasses the products, services, and labor categories necessary to perform the order.
Nash similarly emphasizes that Federal Supply Schedule BPAs can support very large procurements, but remain tied to work covered by the underlying Schedule contract.
For contractors, this warrants attention both before and after BPA award. Companies should map anticipated work to their Schedule SINs, labor categories, teaming arrangements, and BPA scope before assuming that membership in the vehicle creates access to every downstream requirement.
The issue becomes especially important for contractor team arrangements. One team member’s technical capability does not necessarily cure a contractual scope problem elsewhere in the ordering structure.
BPA holders should therefore treat every substantial order as its own scope analysis: What authority permits the Government to place this work under the BPA? Does the requirement fall within the BPA’s competed scope? Does the performing contractor’s underlying Schedule contract encompass the work?
The lesson from Ares Enterprise is straightforward. A BPA may create a powerful pathway to future business. It does not create an unlimited one.
Recommended FedContractPros Product: Federal Teaming Strategy Diagnostic Toolkit
The Federal Teaming Strategy Diagnostic Toolkit can help contractors evaluate whether their own contract vehicles, capabilities, teammates, and allocation of work are aligned before pursuing opportunities through BPAs, CTAs, joint ventures, or subcontracting relationships.
Disclaimer:
This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or procurement advice. BPA, Federal Supply Schedule, contractor teaming arrangement, competition, and order-scope requirements depend on the particular solicitation, agreement, Schedule contract, order, and applicable regulations.