Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; 

we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. 

Decision 

Matter of: Ridgeline Industries, Inc. 

File: B-402105 

Date: January 7, 2010 

Mark Lamer, Esq., Kostos and Lamer, P.C., for the protester. 

Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., and Erin B. Sheppard, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge 

LLP, for Camel Manufacturing Company, an intervenor. 

Lynne Georges, Esq., and Judith Pullman Gever, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for 

the agency. 

Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest challenging sole-source contract for complete tent systems is denied where 

agency sole-source justification reasonably determined that award was necessary for 

industrial mobilization purposes. 

DECISION 

Ridgeline Industries, Inc., of Clayton, New York, protests the award of a contract to 

Camel Manufacturing Company, of Caryville, Tennessee, by the Defense Logistics 

Agency (DLA) under request for proposal (RFP) No. SPM1C1-09-R-0187 for 2,677 

modular general-purpose tent systems. Ridgeline argues that the award of a solesource contract to Camel to preserve the industrial base was unreasonable. Instead, 

Ridgeline argues that it should have been considered for award. 

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND 

In response to this protest, DLA explains that it began to explore the reasons for its 

difficulties meeting the wartime need for tents produced according to military 

specifications as early as 2004. A detailed study was prepared in May 2007, which 

identified seven vendors capable of producing military specification tent systems, of 
which six constituted the core group of tent manufacturers for DLA.1

 The study 

concluded that producing military tents requires specialized skilled labor and 

production lines. The study also noted that vendors had experienced difficulty 

increasing their production to meet the military’s requirements, and were beginning 

to lay off employees and reduce production facilities. AR, Tab 3, Excerpt from 

Minimum Sustaining Rate Study, May 2007, at 1. In response, DLA decided to fund a 

minimum sustaining rate of production to preserve domestic production capacity in 

the interim, and began planning for the long term. 

On August 6, 2009, DLA approved a sole-source procurement of tents from Camel. 

The sole-source justification invoked the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(3) and 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 6.302-3, which provide for award of a 

contract to particular source(s) to maintain the source for a national emergency or 

to achieve industrial mobilization. The sole-source justification explained that the 

contract was required so that the Camel could keep its production line in operation 

while the military services assessed their requirements for tents. AR, Tab 1, 

Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition, at 2. The justification 

explained why each of the other firms identified in the earlier study did not require 

support, while a minimum sustaining rate contract with Camel was necessary for the 

firm to continue operating its military specification tent production line.2

 Id. 

On September 30, 2009, DLA posted an electronic notice, advising that the agency 

intended to award a contract to Camel on a sole-source basis under the authority of 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 6.302-3. Ridgeline filed this protest on 

October 9. 

DISCUSSION 

Ridgeline argues that the sole-source justification is unreasonable because DLA did 

not consider Ridgeline for a contract, and because Ridgeline too is at risk of having 

to close its doors. Protest at 4. Ridgeline states that it has only a handful of key 

employees with the knowledge and skills to manufacture military specification tents, 

and is performing only one small contract, for tent floors. Protest at 5. 

In response, DLA acknowledges that Ridgeline has produced military tent 

components (such as floors, liners, window sections, and ductwork sections), but 

distinguishes Ridgeline’s experience producing tent components from the complete 

tent (or “tent system” in DLA’s terminology). DLA produced records showing that 

Ridgeline last produced a complete military tent system, as opposed to components, 

 

1

 Ridgeline was not among the seven firms. 

2

 The sole-source justification noted that one of the six core vendors identified in the 

2007 study had since gone out of business. AR, Tab 1, Sole-Source Justification, at 4. 

Page 2 B-402105 
Page 3 B-402105 

in 1985.3 DLA states that only recently has Ridgeline even sought to compete under 

solicitations for complete tent systems. Accordingly, DLA argues that it 

appropriately did not consider Ridgeline as a part of the relevant industrial base. 

DLA argues its effort to maintain the existing industrial base does not require making 

award to a firm that wishes to become a new supplier of tent systems, such as 

Ridgeline. AR at 7. 

In response, Ridgeline briefly asserts that DLA is incorrect, but provides no facts to 

support its contentions. Protester’s Comments at 1-2. Thus, although Ridgeline 

argues that it should have been considered an active participant in the market for 

tent systems (as opposed to components), it has provided no factual basis upon 

which our Office could reach such a conclusion, given the detailed information 

submitted by DLA, which shows that Ridgeline is not an established supplier of tent 

systems. 

Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, agencies have authority to 

conduct procurements to establish or maintain sources of supply for a particular 

item in the interest of the national defense, see 10 U.S.C. §§ 2304(b)(l)(B) and 

2304(c)(3). Agencies need not obtain full and open competition where the 

procurement is conducted for industrial mobilization purposes and may use other 

than competitive procedures where it is necessary to award the contract to a 

particular source or sources. Decisions as to which producers should be included in 

the mobilization base, 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. Minowitz Mfg. Co., 

B-228502, Jan. 4, 1988, 88-1 CPD ¶ 1 at 3. 

In our view, Ridgeline has failed to meaningfully challenge the agency’s explanation 

for limiting this award to Camel. In contrast with the factual support and reasoned 

explanation provided in the agency report, Ridgeline’s comments responding to the 

agency report do not show that the sole-source justification was unreasonable. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

 

3

 DLA also explains that the fabric, sealing method, and flame resistance 

requirements for its tents are all different than those under the 1985 contract. AR 

at 7.