Skip to main content

B-244539.2, October 22, 1991

B-244539.2 Oct 22, 1991
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

DIGEST: Dismissal of protest by a potential second-tier subcontractor of a first- tier subcontractor's procurement is affirmed since there is no evidence that second-tier subcontractor is acting "by or for" the government in conducting the procurement. We dismissed Servisco's protest because General Dynamics is a sub-contractor to Universities Research Association. While Servisco concedes that General Dynamics is only a subcontractor. Or solicitations that have been issued by. Or a prime contractor (such as URA) that is acting "by or for" a federal agency. General Dynamics is neither a federal agency nor a prime contractor. A subcontractor of a government prime contractor is not a purchasing agent for the government and therefore its procurements are not "by or for" the government.

View Decision

B-244539.2, October 22, 1991

DIGEST: Dismissal of protest by a potential second-tier subcontractor of a first- tier subcontractor's procurement is affirmed since there is no evidence that second-tier subcontractor is acting "by or for" the government in conducting the procurement.

Servisco Management Limited-- Reconsideration:

Servisco Management Limited requests reconsideration of our dismissal of its protest on July 23, 1991.

We affirm the dismissal.

Servisco originally protested the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. 1251-RHP-777, issued by General Dynamics for coil winding machines to produce magnets. We dismissed Servisco's protest because General Dynamics is a sub-contractor to Universities Research Association, Inc. (URA), the management and operating contractor of the Department of Energy's Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory (SSCL) and our Office generally does not review procurements by such subcontractors.

While Servisco concedes that General Dynamics is only a subcontractor, /1/ it nevertheless argues that SSCL exercises oversight and control over General Dynamics and that therefore the General Dynamics procurement should be subject to our bid protest jurisdiction.

Our Office reviews awards made by, or solicitations that have been issued by, an agency of the federal government, or a prime contractor (such as URA) that is acting "by or for" a federal agency. Edison Chouest Offshore, Inc.; Polar Marine Partners, B-230121.2; B-230121.3, May 19, 1988, 88-1 CPD Para. 477. General Dynamics is neither a federal agency nor a prime contractor. Generally, a subcontractor of a government prime contractor is not a purchasing agent for the government and therefore its procurements are not "by or for" the government. See Yard USA, Inc., B-232326, Sept. 1, 1988, 88-2 CPD Para. 207.

Although the protester argues that SSCL has direct control over General Dynamics such that the company's procurement actions here should be viewed as by or for the government, it has provided no evidence of such control, and there is nothing in the record which so indicates. Therefore, we will not review the procurement conducted by General Dynamics. The dismissal is affirmed.

Honorable Connie Mack

United States Senator

This refers to your letter dated September 19, 1991, concerning the request for reconsideration filed by Servisco Management Limited, in connection with our dismissal of its protest of solicitation No. 1251 RHP- 777, issued by General Dynamics.

By decision of today, copy enclosed, we have affirmed the dismissal.

Enclosure

/1/ Under the contract, General Dynamics is to design and deliver a quantity of magnets. Paul D. Harris for the protester. Robert A. Spiegel, Esq., and John Brosnan, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs