team, EY provided the required evidence of commitment. See CAR 583-84, 588-678. Because EY did not represent that IBM was a part of its subcontracting team, the cases that IBM cites in support of its argument are inapposite. For example, in Sen-trillion, the solicitation required each offeror to supply “signed partnering agreements” with any subcontractors to be used as evi dence of their commitment. 114 Fed.Cl. at 566-67. The court held that the “teaming agreements” proffered by the protester, which stated that the parties would enter into “good faith negotiations with the intent of entering into a mutually acceptable subcontract agreement,” did not satisfy the solicitation’s requirement. Id. at 567. See also LaSalle Partners v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 797, 803-04 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Motorola Solutions, Inc., B-409148 et al.,
holding that in the postaward context a protesting party lacked standing to bring the protest action because it could not show a substantial chance of receiving an award when its submission did not comply with the solicitations substantive requirements holding that offerors did not establish that they had entered a joint venture because the solicitation required submission of a copy of the executed joint venture agreement and the letter proffered by offerors did not satisfy solicitations requirements holding that emboldenment theory not applicable because defendant did not venture from home into public with the drugs or firearms holding that a copy of an agreement executed by an insolvent bank found in the draft documents of the banks attorney did not satisfy section 1823es requirements because it was not an official record of the failed bank holding that defendants failed to raise triable issue of material fact where they did not establish that the type size of the copy they submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion was identical to that of the original contract