Turning to the propriety of the sole-source bridge contract with EG&G, we first find that the sole-source award was improper because it is not supported by a written J&A. In this regard, when an agency uses noncompetitive procedures, such as 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1) (2000), which authorizes the use of noncompetitive procedures when the property or services are available from only one responsible source, the contracting officer is required to execute a written justification with sufficient facts and rationale to support the use of the authority, certify its accuracy and completeness, and obtain approval of the action from the cognizant agency official prior to making an award. See 41 U.S.C. 253(f)(1)(A), (B), (C); Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.303, 6.304. The only exception to this requirement is where the agency uses noncompetitive procedures because the agency's need for the property or services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the government would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals. See 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(2), (f)(2). Here, the agency did not execute a J&A prior to awarding the letter contract, as required by the statute. While a draft J&A has been provided during the course of our consideration of this protest, the agency advises that this document is only the agency's "deliberative processes" until a final document is issued. See Agency Letter, Apr. 1, 2003, at 1. In fact, despite our requests, the agency still has not provided an executed and approved J&A. Thus, the agency's letter contract award to EG&G constitutes an improper sole-source award. See Saltwater, Inc.--Recon. and Costs , B-294121.3, B-294121.4, Feb. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD 33 at 3. (VSE Corporation; Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-290452.3; B-290452.4; B-290452.5, May 23, 2005) (pdf)

When an agency uses noncompetitive procedures under 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(1), it is required to execute a written J&A with sufficient facts and rationale to support the use of the cited authority, and publish a notice to permit potential competitors an opportunity to challenge the agency’s decision to procure without full and open competition. See 10 U.S.C. § 2304(f)(1)(A), (B); Federal Acquisition Regulation §§ 6.302-1(d)(1), 6.303, 6.304; Marconi Dynamics, Inc., B-252318, June 21, 1993, 93‑1 CPD ¶ 475 at 5. Our review of the agency’s decision to conduct a sole-source procurement focuses on the adequacy of the rationale and conclusions set forth in the J&A. When the J&A sets forth a reasonable justification for the agency’s actions, we will not object to the award. Global Solutions Network, Inc., B-290107, June 11, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 98 at 6; Diversified Tech. and Servs. Of Virginia, Inc., B‑292497, July 19, 1999, 99-2 CPD ¶ 16 at 3. Here, based on our review of the record, we find no basis to question SSP’s overall determination that only Draper could satisfy the agency’s need for the establishment and certification of an ISF for the MK 6 guidance system. As documented in its J&A justifying award to Draper, SSP determined that only Draper could establish and certify the ISF SSP because, while individual ISCs were familiar with their particular individual subsystems, only Draper, as the design and development agent for the MK 6 guidance system, as well as for the fleet ballistic missile guidance systems generally, had (1) “comprehensive knowledge” of “all critical elements unique to the guidance system’s performance,” and (2) “comprehensive knowledge” of “the interrelationships of these elements with the entire Trident II weapon system.” J&A at 2. SSP concluded that Draper’s “overall systems engineering knowledge and technical expertise in the MK 6 guidance system is unmatched as a result of over forty years as sole design and development agent on the [fleet ballistic missile] guidance systems.” Id. We conclude that SSP reasonably determined that Draper’s overall knowledge of all of the critical components of the MK 6 guidance system, including the IMU, electronic assembly/IMUEs, and 10-PIGA, was essential in view of the broad scope of the requirement to establish and certify the ISF. (Kearfott Guidance & Navigation Corporation, B-292895.2, May 25, 2004) (pdf)

As explained below, the J&A and its supporting documentation, as well as the agency's submissions prepared in response to this protest and the testimony of the agency representatives at the hearing held at our Office in connection with this protest, contain so many inconsistencies and inaccuracies that they cannot reasonably justify the agency's intended award of a sole-source contract to Rolls-Royce. Specifically, the J&A inaccurately describes the overhaul services to be acquired, the dollar value of the services to be acquired, and the length of time for which the services will be needed. Additionally, the record does not support the J&A's statement that only Rolls-Royce is capable of providing either the engineering or overhaul services, and similarly, fails to support the agency's position, as reflected in the J&A and argued by the agency during this protest, that the engineering and overhaul services must be performed by the same contractor (Rolls-Royce).  (Sabreliner Corporation, B-288030; B-288030.2, September 13, 2001)

Agency's justification for sole-source procurement is inadequate where the documentation does not reasonably show that only this exact product will satisfy the agency's needs, and does not show that the agency's need for the item is of unusual and compelling urgency that was not created by a lack of advance planning.  (National Aerospace Group, Inc., B-282843, August 30, 1999)