[Protest of FAA Award of Sole-Source Contract for Maintenance of Computer Facility]

A firm protested a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sole-source contract award for the maintenance and operation of a computer facility, contending that: (1) FAA improperly extended a contract when the incumbent contractor was not eligible at the time of the extension; and (2) FAA could not justify the sole-source award on the basis of an urgent and compelling need for the services. GAO noted that: (1) the synopsis of the requirements provided prequalification criteria which prospective offerers had to meet in order to receive a copy of the solicitation; (2) the synopsis also indicated the agency's intention to extend the existing contracts to cover fiscal year (FY) 1986 if it found no firms that satisfied the prequalification requirements; (3) 33 firms responded to the solicitation, but only one offerer qualified under the announced criteria; and (4) the Department of Transportation declined to take further procurement action on the FAA requirement. GAO found that: (1) FAA modified the existing contract to include an extension option to cover FY 1986, but instead awarded a 120-day contract to continue performance until it could select a new contractor; (2) the alleged impropriety of the extension was academic since FAA decided not to exercise the option; (3) a sole-source award is justified where an agency reasonably concludes that only one known source can meet its needs; and (4) none of the firms that responded to the solicitation were considered qualified to take over the performance of the services, and the determination to negotiate a limited, interim contract with the awardee was reasonable. Accordingly, the protest was denied in part and dismissed in part.