B-297421, STR, L.L.C., December 22, 2005

B-297421 Dec 22, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights STR, L.L.C. protests the proposed award of a subcontract by SRA International, Inc., a government prime contractor, to Infoterra, Inc. The subcontract is for a grants management software program to be used by the Agency for International Development (AID) and the Department of State. We dismiss the protest. View Decision B-297421, STR, L.L.C., December 22, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: STR, L.L.C. File: B-297421 Date: December 22, 2005 Thomas A. Coulter, Esq., LeClair Ryan P.C., for the protester. Warren D. Leishman, Esq., and Peter E. Young, Esq., Agency for International Development, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Government Accountability Office will not consider protest of an award of a subcontract as –by— the government where the prime contractor drafted the portion of the solicitation pertaining to evaluation of vendor responses; participated substantially in the evaluation of responses and selection of a product for award; and will be responsible for administration of the subcontract. DECISION STR, L.L.C. protests the proposed award of a subcontract by SRA International, Inc., a government prime contractor, to Infoterra, Inc. The subcontract is for a grants management software program to be used by the Agency for International Development (AID) and the Department of State. We dismiss the protest. SRA holds a contract with the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Systems Integration and ManagementCenter pursuant to which it is performing a task order for information management services for AID. In its capacity as a government prime contractor, SRA issued a request for information (RFI) on August 12, 2005, seeking detailed information on commercially available acquisition and assistance systems capable of satisfying the requirements of AID and the Department of State for a Joint Acquisition and Assistance Management System (JAAMS). The RFI explained that AID and State required proven commercial off-the-shelf products based on mature, fully developed systems already in production in other federal agencies, and that vendors could offer already integrated products or individual products capable of being integrated by SRA to meet the agencies' requirements. The RFI further explained that the selected product vendor(s) might serve as subcontractors to SRA under its prime contract. SRA's issuance of the RFI at issue here was preceded by AID's issuance, and subsequent withdrawal, of an RFI seeking related information regarding commercially available acquisition and assistance systems. The AID RFI differed from the SRA RFI in several respects, one of which was that it notified vendors that the agencies were soliciting vendor responses for market research purposes only and that the RFI would not result in a contract award. In keeping with the foregoing, the AID RFI did not contain evaluation criteria, whereas the SRA solicitation did. STR submitted responses to both RFIs. On October 3, SRA notified STR that its product had not been selected; in a subsequent telephone conversation, SRA informed STR that the selected vendor was Infoterra. The protester takes issue with the selection of Infoterra, arguing that the firm does not have a full system in production in any federal agency, as required by the RFI. We will not consider the merits of STR's arguments because, as explained below, the procurement at issue was not conducted by or for a federal agency and thus is not subject to our jurisdiction. Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), our Office has jurisdiction to resolve bid protests concerning solicitations and contract awards that are issued –by a Federal agency.— 31 U.S.C. sect. 3551(1)(A) (2000). Pursuant to our authority under CICA, we initially took jurisdiction over subcontract awards by prime contractors to the federal government where, as result of the government's involvement in the award process, or the contractual relationship between the prime contractor and the government, the subcontract in effect was awarded on behalf of--i.e., –by or for—--the government, and federal procurement laws and regulations otherwise would apply. See, e.g., St. Mary's Hosp. and Med. Ctr. of San Francisco, Calif., B-243061, June 24, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 597. However, in U.S. West Communications Servs., Inc. v. United States, 940 F. 2d 622 (Fed. Cir.