_______________________________________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: August 18, 1992 _______________________________________________________ GSBCA 11955-P INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester. Clarence D. Long, III, James C. Dever, III, and Joseph M. Goldstein, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DEVINE, HENDLEY, and WILLIAMS. HENDLEY, Board Judge. Background On April 24, 1992, the local contracting activity at Patrick Air Force Base (Patrick AFB) in Florida synopsized a requirement in the Commerce Business Daily for the purchase of certain automatic data processing equipment (ADPE). The contracting office at Patrick AFB not only supports the host military organization at the installation but also a variety of tenant organizations. The synopsis notified industry of the respondent's intent to place an order on the General Services Administration's (GSA) ADPE schedule. The organization for which the equipment was actually being procured was not identified in the solicitation, but is clearly an organization which holds a mission exempting it from the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. 759 (1988). During the prehearing conference on this case, the respondent presented to the hearing member an affidavit identifying the using activity and its mission. That classified affidavit clearly shows that the procurement is exempt from our jurisdiction under the Brooks Act, i.e., it is a: procurement by the Department of Defense for automatic data processing equipment or services . . . the function, operation, or use of which - (i) involves intelligence activities; . . . (v) is critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions, . . . . 40 U.S.C. 759(a)(3)(c) (1988) [the "Warner Amendment"]. On August 5, 1992, the respondent, Department of the Air Force, moved to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Warner Amendment. The protester was granted until August 11, 1992, to respond to the respondent's motion. The protester contends that because the respondent chose to utilize a GSA Schedule Contract entered into under the authority of the Brooks Act, the respondent has voluntarily sought the benefits of the Brooks Act and waived the exception in that Act to the Board's jurisdiction over ADPE procurements. The protester contends that had the respondent desired to enter into a procurement subject to the exception to our jurisdiction "the Respondent could have easily issued a solicitation rather than place an order under a GSA Schedule Contract." Discussion This is a "procurement by the Department of Defense for automatic data processing equipment . . . the function, operation, or use of which - (i) involves intelligence activities; . . . (v) is critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions . . . ." and is not for "equipment used for routine, administrative and business applications . . . ." 40 U.S.C. 795(a)(3)(C)(i)-(v) (1988). The best that can be said of the protester's defense to the respondent's motion is that it is quite straightforward. We reject the protester's position. The exception to our protest jurisdiction, commonly referred to as the Warner Amendment, exempts certain "procurements" by the Department of Defense for ADP equipment or services to be used for specific sorts of activities set out in the statute and quoted above. As we have held before, the critical distinction in the Warner Amendment is between equipment which the Defense Department will use for routine administrative and business applications and that equipment which will be used for the military purposes listed in the amendment. Pacificorp Capital, Inc., GSBCA 9321-P-R, 88-1 BCA 20,410, at 103,241, 1987 BPD 278, at 3, aff'd, 852 F.2d 549 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Warner Amendment exception applies to Defense Department procurements of general purpose, commercially available ADPE intended for use for the enumerated military purposes as well as special purpose equipment. Pacificorp, 88-1 BCA at 103,242, 1987 BPD 278 at 5; see also Cyberchron Corp., GSBCA 9445-P, 88-2 BCA 20,783, at 105,004, 1988 BPD 90, at 4, aff'd, 867 F.2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (in determining extent of protest jurisdiction, the Board looks primarily to intended purpose of item in question, not whether it has commercial or noncommercial applications, nor whether the Government told vendors of its intended purpose). The fact that the respondent chose to "procure" the exempted equipment by ordering it off a GSA schedule contract does not make it less a "procurement . . . for automatic data processing equipment," nor alter the fact that respondent will use it for a military purpose enumerated in the Warner Amendment. Decision The protest is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. ___________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge We concur: _______________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge _______________________________ MARY ELLEN WILLIAMS Board Judge