TITLE:  Turkcell Consortium, B-293048.2, November 12, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-293048.2
DATE:  November 12, 2003
**********************************************************************
Turkcell Consortium, B-293048.2, November 12, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:   Turkcell Consortium
    
File:            B-293048.2
    
Date:              November 12, 2003
    
Stephen G. Anderson, Esq., and Charles R. Johnston, Jr., Esq., Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, for the protester.
Maj. Frank A. March, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated
in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest challenging Coalition Provisional Authority*s issuance of licenses
for telecommunications services in Iraq is not for consideration under
General Accounting Office*s bid protest function since the licenses do not
involve the provision of property or services to the federal government.
DECISION
    
Turkcell Consortium protests the decision by the Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA), which currently exercises governmental powers in Iraq,
not to issue to Turkcell a mobile telecommunications license under a
solicitation issued by,
in the protester*s words, "the CPA, in consultation with the Iraqi
Ministry of Communications.*[1] The licenses are granted to allow
companies to offer wireless communications services to private subscribers
for a fee. Army*s Dismissal Request, November 3, 2003, at 5.
    

   We dismiss the protest.
    
The authority of our Office to decide bid protests is based on the
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), 31 U.S.C. S:S: 3551-3556
(2000), and encompasses "a written objection by an interested party to a
solicitation or other request by a federal agency for offers for a
contract for the procurement of property or services.*  Our jurisdiction
does not turn on whether appropriated funds are involved, West Coast Copy,
Inc.; Pacific Photocopy & Research Servs., B-254044, B-254044.2, Nov. 16,
1993, 93-2 CPD P: 283 at 5, or on whether the competition requirements of
CICA apply. 
    
The Department of the Army argues that our Office lacks jurisdiction to
hear this protest because the CPA is not a "federal agency* and
alternatively, this transaction is not a "procurement of property or
services* under CICA.  Army*s Dismissal Request, Nov. 3, 2003, at 5.
    
Where a concession or similar type of contract or agreement, such as a
license, does not include the delivery of goods or services to the federal
government, the contract is not one for the procurement of property or
services as envisioned by CICA.  Starfleet Marine Transp. Inc., B-290181,
July 5, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 113 at 6.  Thus, for example, where the agency*s
issuance of concession permits merely allowed entry by visitors into a
national park, and did not also include the provision of services to the
government, we did not exercise jurisdiction.  Crystal Cruises, Inc.,
B-238347, Feb. 1, 1990, 90-1 CPD P: 141, aff*d, B-238347.2, June 14, 1990,
90-1 CPD P: 560.  Similarly, the license at issue here involves no
provision for property or services to the federal government.  This
transaction is not for the acquisition of goods and services, but the
granting of the right to the selected telecommunications firms to
establish and sell mobile telecommunications services in Iraq to business
and social users.  Coalition Provisional Authority Order 11, Licensing
Telecommunications Services and Equipment (June 11, 2003) and Statement of
Objectives for Iraq Mobile License Offer at Annex B.  The federal
government is not purchasing or receiving any goods or services.  Under
these circumstances, we do not view the award of these licenses as a
procurement of property or services and, therefore, the matter cannot be
considered under our CICA bid protest authority.
    
In light of the above, we need not resolve at this time whether the CPA is
a federal agency for purposes of our bid protest jurisdiction under CICA. 
We note, however, that even if we ultimately determine that the CPA is not
a federal agency, we may well assume jurisdiction if the challenged
procurement is conducted on the CPA*s behalf by an entity that is a
federal agency (such as the Department of the Army).  Cf. Cline Enters.,
Inc., B-252407, June 24, 1993, 93-1 CPD P: 492 at 1 n.1 (GAO has
jurisdiction to decide protest of procurement conducted by federal agency
on behalf of nonappropriated fund activity).  In any event, we would also
consider a request by the CPA for our Office to consider protests outside
the framework of CICA.  Cf. 4 C.F.R. S: 21.13 (concerning nonstatutory
protests involving, among other things, procurements by government
agencies that do not meet the definition of "Federal agencies* in 4 C.F.R.
S: 21.0(c)).
    
The protest is dismissed.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

   ------------------------

   [1] On October 22, 2003, our Office dismissed Turkcell*s original protest
of this same matter because that protest failed to meet the requirements
at 4 C.F.R. S: 21.1(c)(4) and (f) (2003) of our Bid Protest Regulations,
which require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and
factual grounds for protest, and that the grounds stated be legally
sufficient.  In its original protest, Turkcell stated that it had almost
no information about the evaluation of competitors proposals and any
licenses that might have been issued, but that "Turkcell finds it
inconceivable that errors were not made in the evaluation process.*  
Protester*s Original Protest, Oct. 14, 2003,
at 3.  We concluded that such speculation did not meet the requirements in
our Regulations.  See Little Sustina, Inc., B-244228, July 1, 1991, 91-2
CPD P: 6 at 4.  Turkcell filed this second protest after receiving a
debriefing from the CPA.