[Protest of Air Force Contract Awards for Jet Engine Spare Parts]

A firm protested two Air Force contract awards for jet engine spare parts, contending that the Air Force: (1) published synopses of both solicitations under the incorrect Commerce Business Daily (CBD) heading; (2) omitted its parts number in both solicitations, although it was an approved source; (3) omitted its name in the second solicitation; and (4) did not send it the second solicitation. GAO held that, under the first solicitation, the Air Force: (1) did not misclassify the CBD synopses, since it used the proper national stock number to determine the correct heading; (2) properly sent the protester a copy of the solicitation; and (3) identified the protester as an approved source. GAO held that, under the second solicitation, the Air Force: (1) did not misclassify the CBD synopses; (2) inadvertently failed to send the protester a copy of the solicitation; and (3) obtained full and open competition, since it received three offers. Accordingly, the protests were denied.