DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: December 3, 1992 GSBCA 12167-P RMTC SYSTEMS, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent, Jeff Stollman, President of RMTC Systems, Inc., Boulder, CO, appearing for Protester. Clarence D. Long, III, Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, Acting Chief Judge, PARKER, and WILLIAMS. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. In this protest filed on November 10, 1992, RMTC Systems, Inc., has challenged the rejection of its offer and cancellation of solicitation number FO4606-92-R-17033 by the United States Air Force. The solicitation is for printers for the Communications System Segment (CSS) of the Cheyenne Mountain Complex (CMC). By motion dated November 18, and supplemented on November 23, the Air Force sought dismissal of the protest on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction under the Warner Amendment. Specifically, the Air Force contends that the equipment is an integral part of a weapons system and is critical to the direct fulfillment of military or intelligence missions. We agree that the procurement is subject to the Warner Amendment and grant the motion to dismiss. Findings of Fact On May 21, 1992, the Air Force issued solicitation number FO4606-92-R-17033 seeking printers for the CMC. Protest File, Exhibit 5. The CMC is the Command Control Communications and Intelligence Center for coordinating and controlling North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and United States Space Command (USSPACECOM) missions. Protest File, Exhibit 5, Security Classification Guide at 1. The CMC is the primary center for correlating integrated tactical warning/attack assessment data and space control direction. Id. The solicitation incorporated a Security Classification Guide which provided, in pertinent part: The CMC supports the primary mission of early warning and tracking of potential threats to North America. CMC resources also support the secondary mission of assessment and characterization of potential atmospheric, ballistic missile, and space attacks. Id. (emphasis added). The relationship of CSS to other Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) systems was designated "mission critical." Protest File, Exhibits 3, 21. The Acting Chief of the Air Force's Sacramento Air Logistics Center, Detachment 25, explained: Its failure would cause the loss of incoming status messages from various air, missile, and space surveillance sensors to the NORAD Computer System, resulting in unacceptable risk to the National Military Command Center. Protest File, Exhibit 21. The printers were to be part of the Communications Systems Segment of the CMC, and were to replace the Houston Instrument Non-Impact Printers, Model 8210, which were no longer available. Protest File, Exhibit 1. The Houston printers were described as follows: The NIP (Non Impact Printer) are receive-only high speed printers shared by 6 MMI [Man Machine Interface] console operators. NIP's provide hardcopy printouts of system alarms, CPM [Computer Performance Monitor] alarm declarations and cancellations, CSS addressed comm[unication] user messages, and automatic switch reports. Id. at 1. In describing the CSS system in which the printers will be used, an Air Force colonel who is the commander of Detachment 25 of the Sacramento Air Logistics Center stated, "[t]his is a real world Air Defense Mission, not a hypothetical environment." Declaration of Colonel Edward K. McGuire (McGuire Declaration), IV. He further explained: The function of the Communication Systems Segment is to interface CMC systems with external, worldwide command, control and communications elements. The CSS performs message processing, integrity control, formatting recording, protocol conversion, and routing of internal and external messages from various air, space and missile systems. The printers are required to provide hardcopy printouts of system alarms, Communications Performance Monitor alarm declaration and cancellations, Communications System Segment addressed communication user messages, and automated switched reports. These printers are used in conjunction with operator consoles in Communications System Segment operations located at NORAD in Cheyenne Mountain and in the CMC off-site test facility in Colorado Springs. The printers provide the only real-time hardcopy output of data received by the CSS which is needed for instantaneous analysis by NORAD. If the printers are non-functional, the recording of events for real-time analysis is lost and operators will no longer have full status of the CSS. In addition, incoming messages to NORAD could be lost. These printers are mission critical to the performance of the weapon system. The printers are not used for any routine administrative and business applications. McGuire Declaration, IV. The Commander of the 721st Space Group elaborated on the role of the printers: These printers are the real-time Communication System Segment (CSS) status indicators. They provide chronological records of events as they occur. If the printers become non-operational the real-time analysis is lost and the CSS status is unknown. Declaration of Colonel Thomas D. Hatcher, V. Discussion Under the Warner Amendment, 40 U.S.C. 759(a)(3) (1988), this Board does not have jurisdiction over protests involving: (C) the procurement by the Department of Defense of automatic data processing equipment or services if the function, operation, or use of which-- . . . . (iii) involves the command and control of military forces; (iv) involves equipment which is an integral part of a weapons system; or (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 routing administrative and business applications such as payroll, finance, logistics, and personnel management . . . . Respondent contends that the procurement is exempt from our protest jurisdiction on the basis of subparagraphs (iv) and (v) above. We lack an adequate record for determining whether the printers are part of a weapons system, as claimed by the Air Force. The Air Force must introduce specific evidence demonstrating that the procurement falls within the ambit of the Warner Amendment. Racal Information Systems, Inc., GSBCA 10264- P, 90-1 BCA 22,374, 1989 BPD 315. Here, the Air Force has not identified the weapons system of which these printers are claimed to be an integral part.[foot #] 1 Nonetheless, it is clear that these printers are "critical to the direct fulfillment of military missions" and they are in no way used for routine administrative business applications. The printers are to be used exclusively in a defense command facility. The communications system of which the printers are a part detects and tracks potential threats to North America and provides a communications interface between the CMC and other operations worldwide as well as air, space, and missile systems. The printers are used for instantaneous analysis of incoming tactical warning and attack assessment data, including alarms. They also function as real-time status indicators providing chronological records of events as they occur. We view the communications system at the Cheyenne Center as performing an ongoing defensive military mission and the printers as providing a critical function in fulfilling that mission. See generally, Lockheed/MDB v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 12097-P (Nov. 13, 1992) (detection of hostile submarines is a military mission within the scope of the Warner Amendment). In opposing dismissal on Warner Amendment grounds, protester raises two contentions. First, it claims that the Air Force has ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 In his declaration, the Commander of Detachment 25 in the Sacramento Air Logistics Center stated: "These printers are mission critical to the performance of the weapon system." However, the weapon system was not identified. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- not shown a real and convincing nexus between the contract in question and the fulfillment of the alleged military mission because the Air Force canceled the solicitation, thus severing any such nexus. We reject this argument as it evinces a misunderstanding of the Warner Amendment. The Warner Amendment goes to the threshold issue of the Board's jurisdiction to hear a case. In defining cases which were to be exempted from the Board's jurisdiction, Congress spoke in terms of the "procurement" being challenged. Here, the fact that the solicitation has been canceled changes neither the nature of the procurement nor the fact that the challenged action involves a procurement we may not review. Second, protester claims that dismissing this case would not serve the basic purpose of the Warner Amendment which is, in its view, to prevent delays in the procurement of items critical to the defense of the nation. Protester points out that in fact it is trying to expedite this procurement by forcing the Air Force to purchase the printers immediately under the existing solicitation rather than incurring the lengthy delays of a new procurement that has not even begun. Protester has again confused the merits of its case with the threshold issue of our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is conferred by statute and its parameters are not subject to expansion on policy grounds; either the Board has jurisdiction to consider a protest or it does not. Because we conclude that the procurement is critical to the direct fulfillment of a military mission, we dismiss the case and end our inquiry. Cyberchron Corp., GSBCA 9445-P, 88-2 BCA 20,783, 1988 BPD 90 aff'd., 867 F.2d 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Decision This protest is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The Board did not issue an order suspending the Air Force's delegation of procurement authority based upon the Air Force's representation that it would not be proceeding with this procurement within the forty-five days this protest would be pending. _____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge We concur: ____________________________ ____________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA ROBERT W. PARKER Acting Chief Board Judge Board Judge