With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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.

A: recognizing that generally services that benefit debtor are services that facilitate completion of a case
B: holding a task order for expanded flight services for the navy was within the scope because the contract was to cover services worldwide
C: 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
D: holding contract for personal services is not assignable
B.