Please answer the case study question without utilizing Chat GPT or AI. I recognize that the case is missing references please do not worry about that just need an answer.

Question: The case indicates that the Forestry Service had executed a J&A that would exempt it from having to comply with the requirements for full and open competition under CICA. Yet, the GAO determined that the Forestry Service had not complied with CICA and sustained the protest against the agency. Why?

Matter of: Coulson Aviation (USA) Inc.; 10 Tanker Air Carrier, LLC; Minden Air Corp. File: B-409356.2; B-409356.3; B-409356.4; B-409356.5; B-409356.6 Date: March 31, 2014 ... DIGEST Protests of the award of a sole-source contract for firefighting airtanker services under the industrial mobilization exception to the requirement to conduct a competitive procurement are sustained where the sole-source contract resulted from a settlement agreement in exchange for the awardee's withdrawal of an earlier protest and the record does not contain an adequate justification reasonably supporting the agency's use of noncompetitive procurement procedures. DECISION Coulson Aviation (USA) Inc., of Port Alberni, British Columbia, Canada, 10 Tanker Air Carrier, LLC, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Minden Air Corp., of Minden, Nevada, protest the noncompetitive award of contract No. AG-024B-C-14-9000 to Neptune Aviation Services, Inc., of Missoula, Montana, by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service, for next generation (NextGen) large airtanker services for wildland firefighting support. The agency justified the sole-source award under 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(3)(A) (2006), which provides for a noncompetitive award to a particular source to maintain that supplier for a national emergency or to achieve industrial mobilization. See also Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-3. The protesters argue that the sole-source contract awarded to Neptune, which was promised in exchange for Neptune's withdrawal of an earlier bid protest, is not justified. We sustain the protests. BACKGROUND ... DISCUSSION CICA's overriding mandate is for "full and open competition" in government procurements, obtained through the use of competitive procedures. 41 U.S.C. 3301(a)(1). Agencies are provided, however, with authority to conduct noncompetitive procurements in specific limited circumstances. 41 U.S.C. 3304(a). When an agency uses noncompetitive procedures under 41 U.S.C. 3304(a), it is required to execute a written J&A with sufficient facts and rationale to support the use of the cited authority. See 41 U.S.C. 3304(e); FAR 6.302-3(c), 6.303, 6.304; Sabreliner Corp., B-288030, B-288030.2, Sept. 13, 2001, 2001 CPD 170 at 5. Our review of an agency's decision to conduct a noncompetitive procurement focuses on the adequacy of the rationale and conclusions set forth in the J&A. Missouri Mach. & Eng'g Co., B-403561, Nov. 18, 2010, 2010 CPD 276 at 3; SSI Tech., Inc., B-298212, B-298212.2, July 14, 2006, 2006 CPD 183 at 4. Where a federal agency makes a sole-source award for purposes of maintaining a particular source for an item or service, concern for maximizing competition is secondary to the agency's industrial mobilization needs. Outdoor Venture Corp., B-405423, Oct. 25, 2011, 2011 CPD 241 at 2; Ridgeline Indus., Inc., B-402105, Jan. 7, 2010, 2010 CPD 22 at 3. Decisions as to which suppliers should be included in a mobilization base, and which restrictions are required to meet the needs of industrial mobilization, involve complex judgments that are generally left to the discretion of the federal agencies. We will question those decisions only if the evidence shows that the agency has abused its discretion. See Ridgeline Indus., Inc., supra; Minowitz Mfg. Co., B-228502, Jan. 4, 1988, 88-1 CPD 1 at 3. We will sustain a protest, however, where an agency's J&A fails to demonstrate that it is in fact necessary to award a contract to a particular source for industrial mobilization purposes. NI Indus., Inc., Vernon Div., B-223941, Dec. 15, 1986, 86-2 CPD 674 at 3. As explained below, the record does not support the USDA's decision to award a sole-source contract to Neptune for industrial mobilization purposes. Rather, the record demonstrates that the sole-source contract--promised by the Forest Service in exchange for Neptune's withdrawal of an earlier bid protest--was without a reasonable basis. ... Sole-Source Award Justification As set forth above, agencies are generally required to conduct procurements using procedures designed to obtain full and open competition. 41 U.S.C. 3301(a)(1); FAR 6.101. One exception to this requirement is where an agency determines that it is necessary to maintain a vital source of supply for industrial mobilization. In relevant part, the FAR states as follows: (2) Full and open competition need not to be provided for when it is necessary to award the contract to a particular source or sources in order (i) To maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing supplies or services in case of a national emergency or to achieve industrial mobilization. FAR 6.302-3(a). The protesters generally do not dispute that the Forest Service requires additional large airtankers to perform its firefighting mission. Rather, the protesters challenge the reasonableness of the agency's determination that the sole-source contract here is necessary to maintain a vital source of supply. Specifically, the protesters argue that: (1) Neptune is not a vital supplier such that the large airtanker industrial base can be maintained without resorting to noncompetitive procurements; and (2) Neptune does not require a sole-source contract to remain a source of large airtankers. In responding to the protests, the agency has acknowledged that it was initially concerned that Neptune would "immediately go out of business in during [sic] the 2013 fire season, leaving the Forest Service without any of the Legacy air tankers Neptune supplied under the contract awarded March 27, 2013." Agency Post- Hearing Comments, Mar. 18, 2014, at 5. The agency admits, however, that ultimately it concluded there was no concern with Neptune's present viability, but only with its viability after 2017. Id. at 6-7. Consequently, the agency argues, the J&A was not grounded on the agency's belief that Neptune would immediately go out of business without a NextGen contract, but was based on its concern with Neptune's continued availability as a large airtanker supplier after 2017 when its Legacy contract expired.34 AR, Feb. 19, 2014, at 3-7. However, changing its focus during the course of the protests, the agency has also argued that its actual concern is whether it could obtain sufficient NextGen airtankers for the 2014 fire season. See Agency PostHearing Comments, Mar. 18, 2014, at 9-10, 21; see also Tr. at 657-693. In this regard, the agency maintains that it cannot tolerate any further delay in acquiring additional NextGen airtankers for the 2014 fire season. Agency Post-Hearing Comments, Mar. 18, 2014, at 28. The Forest Service contends that this immediate need for additional NextGen airtankers provided it with "an industrial mobilization need in December 2013" when it decided to award Neptune a sole-source, 9-year contract for NextGen airtanker services. Id. at 32. Based upon on our review of the record, including the J&A, its supporting documentation, the agency's submissions in response to these protests, and the testimony of the agency's representatives at the hearing held at our Office, the agency has failed to demonstrate that Neptune requires a sole-source contract to remain a source of large airtanker services for the Forest Service. Although the J&A documents the agency's belief that Neptune is, presently, a vital supplier of large airtanker services under Neptune's Legacy contract, the J&A is devoid of evidence or analysis supporting the need to provide Neptune with a sole-source award for the firm to remain a viable source of supply. Rather, the record demonstrates, as acknowledged by the agency, that Neptune is presently financially viable and is expected to remain financially viable through the term of its Legacy airtanker contract (2017). Moreover, apart from Neptune's own unsupported statements and the anecdotal views of various agency officials, the record contains no analysis or evidence of Neptune's financial condition after 2017. As detailed above, the agency had two financial analyses of Neptune conducted after the company alleged it would go out of business without a NextGen contract award. First, RUS's conclusion, that Neptune needed a NextGen contract to remain viable, was based entirely on unverified financial projections as provided by Neptune. By contrast, the second analysis conducted by FI--which did not simply accept Neptune's projections--found that Neptune's revenue projections were inconsistent with the terms of the Legacy contract, that Neptune's expected costs were lower than the company had itself projected, and that Neptune did not require a NextGen contract to remain viable through the term of the Legacy contract. At no time before the J&A was approved were FI's conclusions disputed or shown to be in error. Moreover, while FI's conclusions were limited to the period through 2017, at no time did the agency conduct any other analysis to determine Neptune's financial viability after 2017. Tr. at 735; Agency Post-Hearing Comments, Mar. 18, 2014, at 7. Accordingly, while the agency contends that the J&A did not rely on the FI financial analysis to assess Neptune's longterm viability, neither did the agency rely on any other information when making such an assessment. In fact, there is simply no record--in the J&A or otherwise--of any assessment by the agency of Neptune's long-term viability. Additionally, the agency's apparent belief that an immediate need for NextGen airtankers in 2014 justified the award of a sole-source, 9-year contract on the basis of industrial mobilization is not supported and has no rational basis. The industrial mobilization exception to competition requirements may be used where an agency determines that "it is necessary to award the contract to a particular source . . . in order . . . [t]o maintain a . . . [vital] supplier . . . ." FAR 6.302-3(a)(2)(i). As noted above, no reasoned analysis has been presented to support a determination that a 9-year, solesource contract was required to maintain Neptune as a source. To the extent the agency believed an urgent need for large airtanker services would justify a noncompetitive 9-year contract, there is no analysis or explanation in the record demonstrating that this is so. We find it both premature and unreasonable for USDA to determine that Neptune requires a sole-source contract now in order to maintain Neptune as a source of large airtanker services after 2017. In addition to its current Legacy contract (including options for more airtankers being placed under the Legacy contract), Neptune is not precluded from competing on work--Forest Service or otherwise--in the coming years. The record also reflects that the NextGen contracts represent the primary, but not only, means by which the Forest Service plans to meet its modernization strategy goal of 18-28 modern large airtankers. In fact, the ASA testified that the agency plans to conduct additional competitions in the coming years under which Neptune is eligible to compete and could receive awards. Tr. at 735-36. Moreover, given the contract options available to the Forest Service under the competitively-awarded NextGen contracts, Neptune may no longer represent a vital source that must be maintained by the Forest Service after 2017. While agencies have authority to make noncompetitive awards when necessary to maintain vital sources, they do not have authority to make noncompetitive awards merely because an offeror is unsuccessful in a competitively-conducted procurement, or because such action was promised in a settlement agreement. See York Int'l Corp., supra; Department of the Army--Recon., B-237742.2, June 11, 1990, 90-1 CPD 546. Accordingly, while the J&A may demonstrate that the Forest Service needs more large airtanker services than it currently has under contract, the J&A completely fails to demonstrate that Neptune must be the supplier of such services or that Neptune currently requires a 9-year sole-source contract to keep it in business as a vital supplier for the agency's post-2017 needs. Just as an agency is not permitted to make a noncompetitive award that exceeds the size or duration of an identified urgency, see FAR 6.302-2(d), an agency is also not permitted to make a noncompetitive award for industrial mobilization reasons where, as here, there has been no showing that the award is presently necessary to maintain a supplier even if deemed vital. NI Indus., Inc., Vernon Div., supra. Neptune would undoubtedly prefer the financial security that would accompany a long-term NextGen contract, but this is simply not the standard by which an agency is permitted to make a noncompetitive award for industrial mobilization purposes. See FAR 6.302-3. Inaccuracies in J&A As a final matter, in addition to the fundamental lack of support for the J&A's premise that Neptune now requires a 9-year sole-source contract in order to maintain the firm in the future as a vital supplier of aircraft, the record reflects that the J&A was premised on materially inaccurate information. As stated above, our review of an agency's decision to conduct a noncompetitive procurement focuses on the adequacy of the rationale and conclusions set forth in the J&A. The adequacy of the rationale and conclusions set forth in the J&A is dependent on the completeness and accuracy of the information included in the J&A. See Sabreliner Corp., supra. We find the J&A to be incomplete, and inaccurate in certain key regards. FAR 6.303-2 identifies information required for an agency's justification of a noncompetitive procurement, stating, among other things, that the J&A "shall include . . . [a] description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency's needs (including the estimated value)," "[a] demonstration that the . . . nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited," and "[a] description of the market research conducted . . . and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted." FAR 6.303- 2(b)(3), (5), (8). Here, the Forest Service's description in its J&A of its noncompetitive requirements, as well as its consideration of alternative sources of supply, is inaccurate. Specifically, the J&A describes the services to be provided by Neptune as two NextGen large airtankers for up to 9 years, at a total estimated value of $141 million. AR, Tab 49, J&A, Dec. 9, 2013, at 1. The record shows, however, that the contract subsequently awarded to Neptune included the option of five additional large airtankers, for up to 9 years each, at a total estimated value of approximately $496 million--more than three times greater than what was approved. See AR, Tab 54, Contract No. AG-024B-C-14-9000, at B1. Thus, the agency's J&A inaccurately described the services to be obtained from Neptune on a noncompetitive basis.39 This is significant because where, as here, an agency proposes to award a sole-source contract under the industrial mobilization exception to the general competition requirements, the amount being ordered must meet--not exceed--the objectives of this authority. See FAR 6.302-3(b)(iii) (when the quantity required is substantially larger than the quantity that must be awarded in order to meet the objectives of this authority, that portion not required to meet such objectives will be acquired by providing for full and open competition); Honorable Dan Burton, B-265884, Nov. 7, 1995, 1995 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 735 at *12. Alternatively, if the J&A was accurate here, then the contract awarded to Neptune impermissibly exceeded what the ASA had approved. Similarly, when considering alternative sources and the market research regarding such sources, the J&A states that "[t]here are no certified [large airtankers] currently available that aren't already under contract with the Forest Service. Aircraft capable of meeting these standards and requirements are not readily available and would take a considerable amount of time to be developed and operationally ready for service." AR, Tab 49, J&A, Dec. 9, 2013, at 4. This statement is also factually inaccurate insofar as 10 Tanker had a certified large airtanker currently available, which the Forest Service actually contracted for in 2013. The J&A also failed to consider the additional large airtankers that Coulson had offered to make available to the Forest Service. The fact that the J&A was inaccurate with regard to alternative sources is also important because where, as here, an agency proposes to award a sole-source contract premised on the vital nature of a supplier, it must accurately consider whether the industrial base can be maintained without resorting to noncompetitive procurements. While the agency argues the fact that other contractors may have airtankers available to perform Neptune's contract to be irrelevant here, AR, Jan. 31, 2014, at 52, we fail to see how the agency can reasonably find Neptune to be a vital source without accurately considering all sources. See FAR 6.302-3; see also Lance Ordnance Co. Inc.; Martin Elecs., Inc., B-246849, B-246952, Mar. 31, 1992, 92-2 CPD 29 at 3-4. RECOMMENDATION In sum, the J&A and its supporting documents, as well as the agency's submissions in response to these protests and the testimony of the agency representatives at the hearing held by our Office, demonstrate that the sole-source award to Neptune was promised in exchange for Neptune's withdrawal of an earlier protest, and that there was not a reasonable basis for the agency's action. Accordingly, we recommend that the agency reassess whether a sole-source contract with Neptune--for industrial mobilization reasons or any other reason--is necessary to meet its needs with regard to large airtanker services. If the agency reasonably determines that the award of a contract on a sole-source basis to Neptune is necessary for large airtanker services, the agency should execute a properly-reasoned J&A for the sole-source award. If the agency determines the award of a contract on a sole-source basis to Neptune for large airtanker services is not necessary or that the contract awarded to Neptune does not reflect the agency's reasonably justified needs, the agency should terminate that contract or modify it as appropriate. We also recommend that the agency reimburse Coulson, 10 Tanker, and Minden the costs of filing and pursuing their protests, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. 21.8(d)(1). The protesters should submit their certified claims for costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, directly to the contracting agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. Id., 21.8(f)(1). The protests are sustained. Susan A. Poling General Counsel