United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been 

approved for public release. 

Decision 

Matter of: Outdoor Venture Corporation 

File: B-405423 

Date: October 25, 2011 

Marc Lamer, Esq., Kostos & Lamer, PC, for the protester. 

Jessica Abrahams, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the intervenor. 

Michael P. Wilson, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. 

Frank Maguire, Esq., and Scott H. Riback, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest challenging sole-source award for tents is denied where agency sole-source 

justification reasonably determined that award was necessary for industrial 

mobilization purposes. 

DECISION 

Outdoor Venture Corporation (OVC) of Sterns, Kentucky, protests the award of 

contract No. SPM1C1-11-C-0019 for lightweight maintenance enclosures (LMEs) by 

the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), on a sole-source basis to Camel Manufacturing 

Company of Pioneer, Tennessee. The sole-source award was justified under 

10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(3) (2006), which provides for award of a contract to a particular 

source to maintain the source for a national emergency or to achieve industrial 

mobilization. See also Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 6.302-3. The 

protester asserts that it should have received an award, since it produces the 

required items and is in need of support to maintain its production capability. 

We deny the protest. 

In a 2007 study, DLA identified seven firms in the relevant industrial base for LMEs 

and other military tent requirements, including OVC and Camel. Agency Report 

(AR), exh. 3, at 1. The study found that five concerns, including Camel and OVC, 

were heavily dependent on DLA business, that the manufacture of tents was labor 

intensive and used a highly skilled workforce, and that the firms all faced challenges 

in retaining their respective workforces. Id. Based on this analysis, DLA began 
issuing contracts to ensure a minimum sustaining rate (MSR) of production to 

preserve domestic capacity. AR, exh. 4. 

In connection with the overall MSR production initiative, Camel was awarded a solesource contract for another category of tents in the relevant industrial base in 2009. 

The justification and approval (J&A) for that contract noted that OVC was then 

exceeding its MSR on long-term contracts with DLA. AR, exh. 2, at 3. In June, 2011, 

DLA undertook an MSR production initiative for the LMEs that are the subject of this 

protest. AR, exh. 5. The agency noted that, due to a gap in its production, Camel 

Manufacturing was considering whether to terminate manufacturing operations. Id.

at 4; see also AR, exh. 9. On June 17, 2011, a J&A was approved for the current 

acquisition. AR, exh. 1. The J&A noted that Camel had three active contracts with 

DLA, but was only in production on two of those contracts. Id. at 2. Production on 

these contracts, however, was below Camel’s MSR and did not generate enough 

income to cover its operating expenses. Id. The J&A provides that the award is for a 

quantity adequate to satisfy Camel’s MSR (approximately 100 units per month for 10 

months) until such time as other pending competitive acquisitions are completed. 

Id. at 2. 

The J&A also discussed other potential suppliers and distinguished their capabilities 

and needs. With regard to OVC, the J&A stated that it did not need to be awarded a 

contract because the firm was currently at its MSR on its long-term contracts with 

DLA. Id. at 3. Award was made to Camel on July 15 and this protest followed. 

The protester asserts that it was unreasonable for the agency not to have considered 

OVC for this contract award. The protester principally asserts that it has less work 

than Camel and that, accordingly, it also should have been considered for the award 

of a mobilization base sole-source contract, especially in view of the fact that this is 

the second such sole-source contract award that recently has been made to Camel. 

OVC also notes that Camel has three other production contracts with DLA (noted 

above), and asserts that Camel had another Army contract awarded to it in June, 

2011. Finally, the protester directs our attention to certain anecdotal information 

that it suggests are evidence of Camel being at a high rate of production, such as 

various Camel job advertisements in local newspapers for experienced sewing 

machine operators, and undated but apparently recent photographs of numerous 

trailers in Camel’s parking lot. 

Agencies have authority to conduct procurements using other than full and open 

competition and may properly award sole-source contracts to a particular concern 

for purposes of establishing or maintaining industrial mobilization base sources of 

supply. 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(3); Magnavox Elec. Sys., Co.; Ferranti Techs., Inc., 

B-247316.2, B-247316.3, May 28, 1992, 92-1 CPD ¶ 475 at 4. Where a military agency 

makes a sole-source award for purposes of maintaining a particular supplier of an 

item, concern for maximizing competition is secondary to the agency’s industrial 

mobilization needs. Outdoor Venture Corp., B-279777, July 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 27 

at 2. Decisions as to which producers should be included in the mobilization base, 

Page 2 B-405423 
Page 3 B-405423 

and which restrictions are required to meet the needs of industrial mobilization, 

involve complex judgments that must be left to the discretion of the military 

agencies. We will question those decisions only if the evidence convincingly shows 

that the agency has abused its discretion. Ridgeline Industries, Inc., B-402105, Jan. 7, 

2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 22 at 3. OVC’s protest does not meet this standard. 

OVC does not challenge Camel’s participation in the relevant industrial base or 

assert that the agency’s analysis of Camel’s current MSR and business condition is 

unreasonable or incorrect. More importantly, although OVC contends that it also 

would benefit from the award of a contract, it nonetheless concedes that it is 

producing at its MSR production capacity. As noted, the record establishes that, 

without additional support, Camel may cease its operations which, the agency has 

determined, would seriously jeopardize the industrial base for MIL-SPEC tents. The 

record also shows that the agency gave specific consideration to whether OVC 

required additional work in order to maintain its production capability and 

concluded that it had adequate work at this time to maintain its MSR. On this 

record, we conclude that the agency reasonably exercised its discretion in making 

award to Camel and in deciding not to make award to OVC. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

General Counsel