[Protest of Department of State Sole-Source Contract Award]

A firm protested a State Department sole-source contract award, contending that the State's failure to solicit an offer from it was improper and the determination that the awardee was capable of performing the contract was improper. GAO noted that the agency's decision to use noncompetitive procedures in the award was justified in light of the high priority of protecting diplomatic missions abroad. The protester argued that even if State did not actively solicit an offer from it, State should have published a notice of the intended procurement. GAO has held that, where the use of noncompetitive procedures is justified because of urgency, the agency need not publish such a notice. The protester also argued that the contracting officer failed to make a formal finding that the awardee was responsible. GAO noted that the contracting officer's signature on the contract constitutes an affirmative determination of the awardee's responsibility unless the protester shows fraud or bad faith on the part of procuring officials. GAO found that: (1) the protester made no showing of bad faith on the part of procuring officials; (2) the failure to consider the protester as a potential source was reasonable since there was no likelihood the protester could meet the government's needs; and (3) the protester's disagreement with the agency's responsibility determination did not meet the heavy burden of proving bad faith. Accordingly, the protest was denied.