_________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION September 23, 1992 _________________________ GSBCA 12007-P GEOMET DATA SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent, and ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Intervenor. Cyrus E. Phillips, IV, William J. O'Brien, II, and Kenneth D. Brody, of Keck, Mahin & Cate, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Jerry A. Walz, F. Jefferson Hughes, Fred Kopatich, and Steven Carrara, Office of General Counsel, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. E. Sanderson Hoe, Jocelyn F. Woolworth, and Robert J. Sherry, of McKenna & Cuneo, Washington, DC, and Jacob B. Pompan, Daniel A. Perkowski, and Lawarence J. Skulte, of Pompan, Ruffner & Bass, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Intervenor. Before Board Judges PARKER, HYATT, and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On September 10, 1992, GeoMet Data Services, Incorporated, filed this post-award protest with the Board. Protester alleges that the respondent, the Department of Commerce, improperly awarded a contract to Atmospheric Research Systems, Incorporated (ARSI), here an intervenor of right. In particular, protester maintains that the ARSI offer fails to comply with three solicitation requirements. In October 1991, the agency excluded protester from the competitive range (in fact, leaving only intervenor in the competition). Challenging its exclusion, protester filed an unsuccessful protest at the General Accounting Office (GAO). The agency and intervenor move to dismiss this protest. First, they maintain that the Board lacks subject matter jurisdiction because protester previously protested the same procurement to GAO. Second, they contend that protester is not an interested party, given its exclusion from the competitive range. Third, the agency asserts that the protest is untimely, because protester knew of the alleged deficiencies in awardee's offer well over ten days prior to protest filing. The Board need reach only the first of the bases for dismissal. Protester's prior protest to the GAO involving the same procurement precludes protester from protesting to this Board. Accordingly, the Board grants the motions to dismiss, and dismisses the protest for lack of jurisdiction over this protester. Findings of Fact By letter dated October 30, 1991, protester filed with the GAO a protest of the contracting officer's decision eliminating protester from the competitive range in the subject procurement. Agency Motion, Exhibit 1. By decision dated March 4, 1992, the GAO denied the protest. GeoMet Data Services, Inc., B-242914.4, 92-1 CPD 259 (Mar. 4, 1992). On September 10, 1992, protester filed a protest with this Board challenging agency actions in the award of the contract under the same procurement underlying its protest at the GAO. Protest Complaint (Sept. 10, 1992). Discussion Statute establishes parameters on the ability of an interested party to avail itself of this protest forum: An interested party who has filed a protest under subsection V of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code, [i.e., protested to GAO] with respect to a procurement or proposed procurement may not file a protest with respect to that procurement or proposed procurement under this subsection [i.e., at the Board]. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(1) (1988). The Board has already addressed the scope of this provision as it applies to this situation: The language of the statute is plain and unambiguous; if a party files its protest at GAO, it may not also file a protest involving the same procurement with the Board. The facts are equally plain; protester filed a protest at GAO on the same proposed procurement that it now protests here. Statute prohibits the Board from taking jurisdiction over [the] protest. . . . . . . . However, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that the grounds [of protest at GAO and the Board] differed, the clear language of the Brooks Act does not permit a protester to pursue different grounds of protest involving the same procurement at separate fora [specifically only the GAO and the Board]. Southern CAD/CAM, GSBCA 11034-P, 91-2 BCA 23,735, 1991 BPD 24. Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 11631-P, 92-1 BCA 24,734, 1992 BPD 25. Although protester maintains that its previous protest at the GAO involved different agency actions than those it now raises before this Board, protester does not contend that the two protests involve a different procurement. The Board lacks jurisdiction over protester's protest. Decision Lacking jursidiction over protester's protest, the Board grants the motions. Accordingly, the protest is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. _________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge