[Protest of Navy Contract Award for Halocarbon Alarm Monitors]

A firm protested a Navy contract award for alarm monitors, contending that the Navy improperly awarded a sole-source contract, since it: (1) improperly determined that the awardee was the only responsible offerer; (2) accepted the awardee's bid, which did not include descriptive literature; and (3) failed to include a price determination in its written justification. The Navy contended that the protester untimely filed its protest. GAO held that the: (1) protester timely filed its protest; (2) Navy reasonably determined that the awardee was the only responsible bidder; (3) protester failed to submit sufficient technical data detailing how its product could meet the requirements; (4) awardee supplied the brand-name product the solicitation required; and (5) Navy's failure to include a price reasonableness determination in its written justification did not prejudice the protester. Accordingly, the protest was denied.