___________________________________________________ DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: January 4, 1999 ___________________________________________________ GSBCA 12097-P LOCKHEED/MDB, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent, and INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP INC. Intervenor. T. Mark Benjamin, Lockheed/MDB for Protester. James E. Fender, Office of Counsel, Department of the Navy, Portsmouth, NH, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, Acting Chief Judge, BORWICK, AND PARKER. BORWICK, Board Judge. The Department of the Navy (Navy), respondent in these proceedings, has moved to dismiss this protest for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the protest is governed by the Warner Amendment, 10 U.S.C. 2315 (1988), which also appears in the Brooks Act, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Reauthor- ization Act of 1986, Pub. L. Nos. 99-500, 99-591, 100 Stat. 1783-340, 3341-340; 40 U.S.C. 759(a)(3)(1988). We agree and grant the motion to dismiss. Background This protest, filed on October 9, 1992, by Lockheed/MDB, contests the award of a contract to awardee Tri-Star Technologies whose proposal allegedly does not comply with the technical requirements of the solicitation. Protester also alleged that the Navy issued amendments relaxing certain requirements, but did not allow resubmission of pricing to reflect the relaxed requirements. The procurement is for a mass storage subsystem for the Navy's Desktop Tactical Support Computers DTC-2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Enclosure 2. The procurement called for an initial quantity of sixty mass storage systems with an option for an additional sixty units. Id. On January 9, 1991, the Commander of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, determined that computer resources for the Antisubmarine Warfare Operations Center (ASWOC) program are components of the Navy command and control system and thus exempt under the Warner Amendment. Id., Enclosure 3. ASWOCs are established nodes of the Navy command and control system ashore and provide anti-submarine warfare sector commanders with capabilities necessary to perform assigned missions. Respondent's Decision Coordinating Paper at 2. These missions involve United States and allied forces participating in anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, over-the-horizon detection, law enforcement assistance, search and rescue, ocean surveillance, mining, and special operations. Id. The ASWOC C3 system is capable of exchanging pertinent tactical and mission conflict avoidance information and supporting forward basing requirements under national and allied tasking. Id. The system will exchange information with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allied marine patrol aircraft, sea-based anti- submarine warfare platforms, and the towed array surveillance system. The system can exchange information with the Battle Force, Battle Group, and Surface Action Group. Id. The Navy has instituted the ASWOC C3 modernization program to provide improved mission planning, in-flight support, and post-mission analysis and reporting capabilities. Respondent's Decision Coordinating Paper at 1. The program will upgrade currently deployed ASWOC hardware to support operation requirements. Id. One of the principal objectives of the modernization program is to provide the capabilities to conduct multiple mission evolutions simultaneously at any given time. Id. The modernization program includes use of the Navy Standard Desk-Top Tactical Support Computers (DTC-2s) to implement the joint operational tactical system, the anti-submarine warfare tactical decision aid, the naval warfare tactical data base, the generalized environmental model, and the operations support system, as those systems reside on the DTC-2s. Id. at 4. Discussion The Warner Amendment, 10 U.S.C. 2315 (1988), which also appears in the Brooks Act, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act of 1986, Pub. L. Nos. 99-500, 99-591, 100 Stat. 1783-340, 3341-340; 40 U.S.C. 759(a)(3)(1988), provides in pertinent part: This section [the Brooks Act] does not apply to-- . . . . (C) The procurement by the Department of Defense of automatic data processing equipment or devices if the function, operation, or use of which-- . . . . (iii) involves command and control of military forces; . . . . (v) is critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions, provided that this exclusion shall not include automatic data processing equipment used for routine administrative and business applications such as payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel management[.] 40 U.S.C. 759(a)(3)(1988); see TBC Corp., GSBCA 9471-P, 88-1 BCA 20,817, at 105,230, 1988 BPD 98, at 3. Respondent invokes the exemption of 759(a)(3)(C)(iii) ("involves the command and control of military forces") in support of its claim that this procurement is not subject to the Brooks Act. In reviewing this assertion, we apply the common meaning of the term "involves." Pacificorp Capital Inc v. United States, 852 F.2d 549, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1988). "Involve" means "to relate closely: CONNECT, LINK" or "to have within or as part of itself: CONTAIN, INCLUDE." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1191 (1986). In making our analysis, we look primarily to the actual intended purpose for the item in question and not to whether it has commercial or non-commercial application or whether vendors are told of its intended purpose. Cyberchron Corp., GSBCA 9445-P, 88-2 BCA 20,783, at 105,004, 1988 BPD 90, at 4, aff'd., 867 F.2d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1989); TBC. Here, the purpose of the procurement is to acquire disk storage subsystems to support the DTC-2 computer, a tactical desktop computer whose purpose is to exchange information with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allied marine patrol aircraft, sea- based anti-submarine warfare platforms, and the towed array surveillance system. The system can also exchange information with the Battle Force, Battle Group, and Surface Action Group. The ASWOC C3 system is capable of exchanging pertinent tactical and mission conflict avoidance information and supporting forward basing requirements for national and allied tasking. The function of this system is to allow these forces to participate in anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, over-the-horizon detection, law enforcement assistance, search and rescue, ocean surveillance, mining, and special operations. This function is the quintessential nature of command and control of military forces--providing automated systems to move troops where they are needed to fulfill military missions. The exemption of 759(a)(3)(C)(v) ("critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions") also applies. To invoke this exemption, there must be present facts establishing that the equipment "is related in an intimate and crucial fashion" to important military missions. Data General Service, Inc., GSBCA 9724-P, et al., 89-1 BCA 21,355, at 107,655, 1988 BPD 274, at 7. There must be a specific military mission to which this exemption would apply. Communications Technology Applications, Inc., GSBCA 9978-P, 89-3 BCA 21,941 at 110,357, 1989 BPD 164, at 3. An automatic data processing system to detect intruders at three military bases considered at high terrorist risk has been held to be critical to the direct fulfillment of a military mission, qualifying as such under the Warner Amendment. Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 876, 878 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It follows, therefore, that the detection (and subsequent destruction) of hostile submarines is also a military mission within the scope of the Warner Amendment. The evidence of record is that the mass storage procured will be used exclusively to store data for the DTC-2 computers and will not be compromised for routine administrative use. Id. at 879. We therefore grant respondent's motion to dismiss. Decision This protest is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The protest may not be refiled at this Board. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: _________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA Acting Chief Board Judge _________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge