[Protest of Navy Contract Award for Braze Cleaning System]

A firm protested a Navy contract award for a braze cleaning system, contending that: (1) the awardee was not eligible because it did not respond to the original solicitation by the closing date; (2) the Navy improperly reopened the solicitation; (3) it should have won the contract based on an unsolicited proposal it submitted prior to the solicitation; and (4) the awardee may be infringing on its patents. GAO found that: (1) the protest that the Navy acted improperly in reopening the solicitation was untimely; (2) the protester's contention that it should have won award based on its unsolicited proposal was an argument for restricted competition and sole-source procurement, which GAO will not review; and (3) the allegation that the awardee may have infringed on the protester's patents was not a basis for protest which it would review. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.