[Protest of Sole-Source Air Force Contract Award]

A firm protested an Air Force sole-source contract award, contending that it and other firms could have supplied the required equipment and that the contracting officer improperly excluded other firms from the competition. The protester also requested that it be compensated for the business it could have obtained. The Air Force stated that the contract required equipment having several unique capabilities and only the awardee could manufacture such equipment. A review of the record showed that the contracting officer failed to follow applicable procurement procedures and also failed to synopsize the procurement in the Commerce Business Daily for the requisite time period. GAO held that, since procurement procedures and advertising requirements were not followed, the procurement was improper. Accordingly, the protest was sustained. However, there was no legal basis for allowing compensation to the protester, nor was the protester eligible to receive bid preparation costs. Further, since the contract had been completed, corrective action was not possible.