within a third-party competitor protest, as in this case, the court will decide whether the change was within the “scope of the competition.” See John Cibinic, Jr. & Ralph C. Nash, Jr., Administration of Government Contracts 384, 388 (3d ed.1995). “CICA sets forth no standard for determining when modification of an existing contract requires a new competition or falls within the scope of the original competitive procurement.” Wiltel, 1 F.3d at 1205. The question the Federal Circuit has undertaken, therefore, is whether a contract as modified has materially departed from the scope of that contract as originally procured. Id. “[A] broad original competition may validate a broader range of later modifications without further bid procedures.” Id.; see Phoenix Air, 46 Fed.Cl. at 105-06 (<HOLDING>); Astronautics Corp. of Am., Comp. Gen. Dec.
holding a task order for expanded flight services for the navy was within the scope because the contract was to cover services worldwide holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute holding contract for personal services is not assignable recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case holding that plaintiff who provided similar services which were arguably attendant care services under state law fell within the exemption