Navy Competition Advocate General and ADP Vendor Complaint Handling

GAO discussed the Navy's automated data processing procurement practices, focusing on the: (1) Competition Advocate General's process for handling complaints; and (2) ADP Acquisition Assessment Panel's efforts to improve competitiveness in ADP procurement. GAO found that: (1) the Advocate Office had no written complaint-handling procedures, did not have a comprehensive recordkeeping system for complaints, and did not monitor other activities' actions in handling referred complaints; (2) the Panel reviewed 22 planned ADP procurements and 23 procurement awards to identify restrictions to competition and used the results to enhance competition in future ADP procurements; (3) the Panel revised ADP procurement procedures to require development of acquisition plans or competition papers for commercial ADP equipment procurements, Advocate General review of the plans, independent reviews of technical specifications, and increased communication with ADP industry representatives; (4) the Advocate Office had a limited role in complaint resolution, with the exception of a complaint concerning the Office of Naval Research's (ONR) lack of competitiveness in its ADP procurements, in which it found that between 1986 and 1989, ONR awarded 29 of 30 contracts to 1 vendor; and (5) the Advocate Office also found that ONR did not perform advance procurement planning to achieve full competition and ensure that the procurements met its needs in the most effective, economical, and timely manner and often purchased its ADP equipment piecemeal.