[Protest of Proposed Navy Sole-Source Procurement]

A firm protested the Navy's proposed sole-source procurement for the Air Force of two diesel engine generator units with auxiliaries. The agency decided to procure the units on a sole-source, negotiated basis because that was how they were procured previously. In addition, the agency found that such a purchase would enhance war readiness because standardization and interchangeability of parts would be retained. Accordingly, the agency found that formal advertising was inappropriate. However, the protester contended that the procurement should be formally advertised rather than negotiated. The protester asserted that: (1) the solicitation language implies that parts designs may be changed, thus negating the concept of standardization; (2) standardization would not permit cannibalization of parts to any great degree if damage occurs through combat because such damage would more than likely occur to major unit parts which are not stocked as spare parts; (3) almost all engine power stations are composed of different manufacturers' diesel engine generators; and (4) the competitive process would provide the best fuel-efficient equipment. GAO held that a need exists for repairing units as quickly as possible, should they be damaged in a war, through the stocking of a minimum of spare parts and that the procurement of these units did not follow a prior noncompetitive award. In addition, GAO did not view the protester's rebuttal of the agency's position as persuasive. Accordingly, the protest was denied.