Blade Strategies, LLC

B-416752 Sep 24, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Blade Strategies, LLC, of Huntsville, Alabama, a woman-owned small business (WOSB), protests the decision by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, to enter into an other transaction agreement (OTA) with Advanced Technology International (ATI), of Summerville, South Carolina, under the terms of notice for proposals (NFP) No. W31P4Q-17-X-0001, for development of guided missile technology. The protester argues that the NFP improperly provided for the award of an OTA, rather than a procurement contract, and also challenges other terms of the NFP. We dismiss the protest. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Blade Strategies, LLC File:  B-416752 Date:  September 24, 2018 Mitzi  Whittenburg, for the protester. James J. McCullough, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., and Anayansi Rodriguez, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for Advanced Technology International, the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation for the award of an other transaction agreement is dismissed as untimely where the protester did not challenge the agency's use of its other transaction authority prior to the time for receipt of proposals. DECISION Blade Strategies, LLC, of Huntsville, Alabama, a woman-owned small business (WOSB), protests the decision by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, to enter into an other transaction agreement (OTA) with Advanced Technology International (ATI), of Summerville, South Carolina, under the terms of notice for proposals (NFP) No. W31P4Q-17-X-0001, for development of guided missile technology.  The protester argues that the NFP improperly provided for the award of an OTA, rather than a procurement contract, and also challenges other terms of the NFP. We dismiss the protest. The Army issued the NFP on April 7, 2018, seeking proposals to provide "development and maturation of guided missile technologies, manufacturing and enabling/disruptive technologies, and aviation technologies."  NFP at 3.  The solicitation anticipated the award of the OTA to a representative of a consortium of industry and academia entities with expertise in the required technologies.  Id.  The solicitation provides for a 10-year agreement with an estimated value of $2 billion.  Id. at 5.  The solicitation was issued under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2371b, which authorizes the Secretary of the Army to enter into an OTA for prototype projects.  Id. at 1, 3.  As discussed in detail below, OTAs are not procurement contracts and do not fall under the provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).  The agency received proposals from six offerors, including Blade Strategies.  Agency Request for Dismissal, Sept. 6, 2018, at 3.  The agency awarded the OTA to ATI on July 31.  Id. Blade Strategies raises the following three primary arguments:  (1) the NFP improperly provided for the award of an OTA, rather than a FAR-based procurement contract; (2) the anticipated award to a consortium comprised of industry and academia improperly conflates the roles of for-profit and not-for-profit entities; and (3) the anticipated award to a consortium prejudiced the ability of WOSBs to compete for the award.  Protest at 3-4, 24.  The Army requests that we dismiss the protest because the protester is untimely to challenge the terms of the solicitation, which clearly set forth the agency's decision to obtain its requirements through the use of an OTA.  For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the agency.[1] Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) and our Bid Protest Regulations, we review protests concerning alleged violations of procurement statutes or regulations by federal agencies in the award or proposed award of contracts for the procurement of goods and services, and solicitations leading to such awards.  See 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551(1), 3552; 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(a).  In circumstances where an agency has statutory authorization to enter into "contracts . . . [or] other transactions," we have concluded that agreements issued by the agency under its "other transaction" authority "are not procurement contracts," and therefore we generally do not review protests of the award or solicitations for the award of these agreements under our bid protest jurisdiction.  Rocketplane Kistler, B-310741, Jan. 28, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 22 at 3; see also MorphoTrust USA, LLC, B-412711, May 16, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 133 at 7-8.  We will review, however, a timely protest that an agency is improperly using its other transaction authority to procure goods or services.  4 C.F.R.