Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation

B-416820 Oct 11, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of a Federal Supply Schedule task order to Torch Technologies, Inc., under task order request for quotations No. TORFQ 2018T-01, issued by the Department of the Army, for technical research and related activities to support the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Intuitive challenges the agency's technical and price evaluations and source selection decision. We dismiss the protest. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation File:  B-416820 Date:  October 11, 2018 Angela B. Styles, Esq., Robert J. Wagman, Jr., Esq., Laura Prebeck Hang, Esq., and Joshua M. Freda, Esq., Bracewell LLP, for the protester. Roderic G. Steakley, Esq., Sirote & Permutt, PC, for Torch Technologies, the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is dismissed where the matter involved is the subject of litigation before a court of competent jurisdiction. DECISION Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation of Huntsville, Alabama, protests the issuance of a Federal Supply Schedule task order to Torch Technologies, Inc., under task order request for quotations No. TORFQ 2018T‑01, issued by the Department of the Army, for technical research and related activities to support the Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center.  Intuitive challenges the agency’s technical and price evaluations and source selection decision. We dismiss the protest. The Army has notified the parties that another firm, Systems Studies & Simulation, Inc., (SSS), has filed a protest at the United States Court of Federal Claims under this same solicitation.  Req. for Dismissal.  The Army points out that the court has jurisdiction to hear SSS’s protest and contends that we should dismiss Intuitive’s protest accordingly.  Id.  We agree. Our Office will not decide a protest where, as here, the matter involved is the subject of litigation before a court of competent jurisdiction.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b); Oahu Tree Experts, B-282247, Mar. 31, 1999, 99-1 CPD ¶ 69.  Even where the issues before the court are not the same as those raised in our Office by a protester, or are brought by a party other than the protester, we will not consider the protest if the court’s disposition of the matter could render a decision by our Office academic.  Schuerman Dev. Co., B‑238464.3, Oct. 3, 1991, 91-2 CPD ¶ 286 at 2-3; Geronimo Svc. Co.--Recon., B‑242331.3, Mar. 22, 1991, 91-1 CPD ¶ 321 at 2.  Intuitive nevertheless objects to dismissal of its protest.  Obj. at 2.  Citing our decision in Premiere Credit of N. Amer., LLC; Financial Mgmt. Sys. Inv. Corp.--Recon., B‑414220.49, B‑414220.50, Apr. 6, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 117, Intuitive complains that the Army has not provided our Office with any court documents to allow us to conduct an inquiry to evaluate whether SSS’s protest at the court involves the same matter raised by Intuitive in the instant protest.  Id. Our decision in Premiere Credit is inapposite and has no application here.  Premiere Credit stands for the proposition that the mere fact that a notice of intent to file a complaint, or even a complaint itself, has been filed by a party at the court does not de facto (or “immediately and automatically,” as the requesters argued in Premiere Credit) divest our Office of jurisdiction over a protest pursuant to 4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b).  Premiere Credit, supra, at 4.  Such a court filing only triggers the requirement for our Office to consider whether dismissal is required under the prudential considerations reflected in 4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b).  Id.  As we explained in Premiere Credit, prudential considerations underlying 4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b) include deferring to a court’s resolution of similar protest issues in order to obviate the risk of an inconsistent resolution of the issues between the forums.  Id. (citing Robinson Enters.--Req. for Recon., B‑238594.2, Apr. 19, 1990, 90‑1 CPD ¶ 402 at 2; Snowblast-Sicard, Inc., B‑230983.2, Aug. 30, 1989, 89‑2 CPD ¶ 190 at 2). Significantly, Intuitive ignores the crucial fact that in Premiere Credit, the protester at issue did not provide notice (to GAO) of its filing with the Court of Federal Claims until after our Office had issued a decision resolving the protests.  As we stated in Premiere Credit, the requesters’ position would require us to apply 4 C.F.R.