B-168039, DEC. 29, 1969

B-168039, DEC. 29, 1969

NEGOTIATION--SPECIFICATIONS UNAVAILABLE--PRODUCT ACCEPTABILITY LOW BIDDER'S PROTEST TO AWARD AT MUCH HIGHER PRICE FOR IDENTICAL OR INTERCHANGEABLE MOTOR WHERE ADEQUATE SPECIFICATIONS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHICH NECESSITATED NEGOTIATION IS DENIED SINCE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS REQUIRED THAT SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL DATA BE FURNISHED TO EVALUATE PRODUCT PROPOSED IF OTHER THAN PRODUCT NAMED WHICH PROTESTANT FAILED TO DO. THEREFORE, NO LEGAL BASIS EXISTS FOR OBJECTING TO PROCUREMENT OF NAMED PRODUCT SINCE COMPLETE MANUFACTURING DATA FOR MOTOR WAS NOT AVAILABLE NOR DATA CONCERNING TESTING PROCEDURES IN INSURING THAT MOTORS, ONCE MANUFACTURED, WOULD FUNCTION SATISFACTORILY IN END PRODUCT BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT PROCURING ACTIVITY OBTAIN ADEQUATE SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS OR TEST CRITERIA FOR FUTURE PROCUREMENTS AS BASIS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING.

TO CONTINENTAL ELECTRIC CO; INC.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1969, WITH ENCLOSURES, TO CONGRESSMAN PETER W. RODINO, JR; IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PROTEST AGAINST AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO ANOTHER FIRM UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) DSA700-69-R-5349, ISSUED BY THE DEFENSE CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CENTER, COLUMBUS, OHIO. YOUR LETTER AND ACCOMPANYING ENCLOSURES WERE FORWARDED TO US BY CONGRESSMAN RODINO AND WILL BE TREATED AS A PROTEST FILED BEFORE THIS OFFICE.

THE ABOVE MENTIONED RFP WAS FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF 950 DIRECT CURRENT MOTORS, FSN 6105-059-8874, TO BE USED FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS IN ELECTRONIC COUNTER MEASURES EQUIPMENT USED BY THE AIR FORCE IN VARIOUS AIRCRAFT. THE RFP WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY 21, 1969, AND SPECIFIED FEBRUARY 20, 1969 AS THE CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS. AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE WAS BASED UPON A DETERMINATION MADE PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. 2304 (A) (10) AND SECTION 3-210.2 (XIII) OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS (ASPR), WHICH AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENTS WHERE DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE SUPPLIES REQUIRED, THE USE OF FORMAL ADVERTISING NOT BEING FEASIBLE OR PRACTICAL DUE TO LACK OF ADEQUATE SPECIFICATIONS. THE REQUIRED SUPPLIES WERE DESCRIBED IN THE SOLICITATION AS FOLLOWS:

"REQN NO. SC0700-8306-U696

1. FSN 6105-059-8874

MOTOR, D. C.

MANUFACTURED BY OR SUPPLIED UNDER THE FOLLOWING PART NUMBERS)

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. P/N 5BA25JJ515B

WESTINGHOUSE ELEC. CORP. P/N 905D991-2

EASTERN INDUSTRIES DIV. LFE, INC. P/N 71747-1 OR 71944-1

TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL OFFERORS, OFFER BASED ON -

MANUFACTURER'S NAME -------------------------------------------

PART NUMBER ------------------------------------------------------" ADDITIONALLY, THE SOLICITATION CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING:

"(X) CLAUSE 2.102 - PRODUCTS OFFERED

(A) PRODUCTS OFFERED MUST EITHER BE IDENTICAL OR FUNCTIONALLY, PHYSICALLY, MECHANICALLY AND ELECTRICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE WITH THE PRODUCTS CITED IN EACH ITEM DESCRIPTION OF THIS SOLICITATION.

(B) FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES OFFERORS MUST INDICATE, BY MARKING THE APPROPRIATE BLOCKS), WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS IS APPLICABLE TO EACH ITEM WHICH THEY ARE OFFERING AND FURNISH WHATEVER SUPPORTING INFORMATION IS REQUIRED BELOW. 'FAILURE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DATA AND INFORMATION REQUIRED TO SUPPORT SITUATIONS (2), (3) AND (4) BELOW MAY PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR PROPOSAL.'

(1) FOR ITEMS ---- WILL FURNISH THE CITED MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCT BEARING THE NUMBER SPECIFIED. NOTE: IF MORE THAN ONE MANUFACTURER'S NUMBER IS SPECIFIED IN THE SCHEDULE, THE OFFEROR MUST INSERT BENEATH THE APPLICABLE ITEMS) OF THE SCHEDULE THE MANUFACTURER'S NAME AND NUMBER WHICH HE IS OFFERING.

(2) FOR ITEMS ---- WILL FURNISH A PRODUCT MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITED MANUFACTURER'S DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION, BUT BEARING A DIFFERENT NUMBER. NOTE: THIS BLOCK MUST BE COMPLETED BY OFFERORS MANUFACTURING THE ITEM DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE FOR THE COMPANY OR FIRM WHOSE NAME AND NUMBER IS SPECIFIED. OFFERORS MUST INSERT BENEATH THE APPLICABLE ITEM OF THE SCHEDULE THE SUBSTITUTED MANUFACTURER'S NAME AND PART NUMBER. ADDITION, THE OFFEROR MUST FURNISH A COPY OF THE DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION FOR THE PART NUMBER CITED IN THE SCHEDULE OR OTHER INFORMATION TO ESTABLISH THAT THE OFFEROR WILL FURNISH THE SAME ITEM AS DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE BUT HAVING A DIFFERENT NUMBER.

(3) FOR ITEMS ---- WILL FURNISH A PRODUCT DETERMINED UNDER PRIORITY MILITARY CONTRACTS, EITHER AS A PRIME OR SUBCONTRACTOR TO BE FUNCTIONALLY, PHYSICALLY, MECHANICALLY AND ELECTRICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE WITH THE PRODUCT CITED IN THIS SOLICITATION THOUGH NOT MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITED MANUFACTURER'S DRAWING OR SPECIFICATION. NOTE: OFFERORS RELYING ON THIS PARAGRAPH (3) MUST INSERT BENEATH THE APPLICABLE ITEM OF THIS SOLICITATION THE SUBSTITUTED MANUFACTURER'S NAME AND NUMBER, AND IN ADDITION, FURNISH SUFFICIENT DATA TO SUITABLY SUBSTANTIATE THE ITEM AS ACCEPTABLE, E.G; (1) COPY OF CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER UNDER WHICH FURNISHED, (2) COPY OF A DRAWING TO WHICH MADE, (3) COPY OF LETTER OR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, ETC.

(4) FOR ITEMS ---- WILL FURNISH A PRODUCT WHICH IS EQUAL IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS TO THE PRODUCT REFERENCED IN THE ITEM DESCRIPTION. NOTE: THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE DETAILED DATA FOR THE ITEM REFERENCED IN THE ITEM DESCRIPTION. THEREFORE, OFFERORS RELYING ON THIS PARAGRAPH (4) MUST FURNISH WITH THEIR OFFERS DRAWINGS AND OTHER DATA WHICH WILL CLEARLY DESCRIBE THE CHARACTERISTICS AND FEATURES OF THEIR PRODUCT. IN ADDITION, OFFERORS MUST FURNISH DRAWINGS OR OTHER DATA COVERING DESIGN, MATERIALS, PERFORMANCE, ETC; OF THE PRODUCT CITED IN THE SCHEDULE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO DETERMINE THAT THE OFFEROR'S PRODUCT IS EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE."

ALSO, THE SOLICITATION CONTAINED CLAUSE 2.104, ENTITLED "NONAVAILABILITY OF SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS OR DRAWINGS," WHICH STATES:

"SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS OR DRAWINGS FOR ITEMS BEING PROCURED UNDER THIS SOLICITATION ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR FURNISHING BY THE GOVERNMENT TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS."

INITIALLY SOLICITATIONS WERE SENT TO FOUR PROSPECTIVE SUPPLIERS, SOLICITATIONS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SENT TO FOUR OTHER SUPPLIERS, INCLUDING YOUR FIRM, IN RESPONSE TO REQUESTS RECEIVED AFTER THE INITIAL SOLICITATIONS WERE ISSUED. BY TELEPHONE OF FEBRUARY 5, 1969. YOU REQUESTED A COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEM BEING PURCHASED. IN RESPONSE TO YOUR REQUEST AMENDMENT 0001 WAS ISSUED, WHICH STATED:

"MOTOR, DIRECT CURRENT - SERIES WOUND TYPE, 27 V, 6.5 AMP, DESIGNED FOR ONE WIRE GROUND RETURN SYSTEM, 1/7 HP, 9100 RPM, SINGLE TAKE-OFF SHAFT, CW ROTATION, CLOSED FRAME, MINUS 50 DEG C - TO 71 DEG C AMBIENT TEMP RANGE, POWER TAKE-OFF END-SLOTTED SHAFT TYPE, 0.315 IN. DIA. SHAFT, DIM. DATA, 4.313 IN. LG EXCL SHAFT, -21/2 IN. W, -2-1/2 H, SHAFT DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND END OF INCLOSURE, FIXED-END MTG. FOUR HOLES, 0.212 DIA SPACED ON 2.120 IN. BY 2.120 IN. MTG CENTERS, 60000 FT MAX OPERATING ALTITUDE."

FOUR OFFERS WERE RECEIVED AS FOLLOWS:

CONTINENTAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. $ 54.65 EACH

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 92.09 EACH

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 93.40 EACH

EASTERN INDUSTRIES DIVISION, LFE, INC. 197.00 EACH

YOUR FIRM OFFERED ITS PART NUMBER 73421 AND CHECKED BLOCK (4) OF CLAUSE 2.102 (B), BUT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE NOTE UNDER THAT BLOCK THAT DRAWINGS OR OTHER DATA OF THE PRODUCT CITED IN THE SCHEDULE BE FURNISHED. SINCE YOUR PART NUMBER WAS NOT ONE OF THE APPROVED PART NUMBERS CITED IN THE SOLICITATION, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FORWARDED YOUR OFFER TO THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL OPERATIONS FOR AN EVALUATION. THE REPLY FROM THE DIRECTORATE STATED THAT YOUR PRODUCT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE YOU HAD NOT FURNISHED SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL DATA TO ADEQUATELY EVALUATE YOUR PRODUCT. BY LETTER OF MAY 6, 1969, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT YOUR OFFER HAD BEEN REJECTED AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT YOU CONTACT KELLY AIR FORCE BASE, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, TO DETERMINE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFICATION TESTING. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOU SUBSEQUENTLY SPOKE TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WHO ADVISED YOU THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE DATA CONCERNING THE GENERAL ELECTRIC MOTOR TO EVALUATE YOUR MOTOR AND THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE YOUR MOTOR EVALUATED, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SUPPLY DRAWINGS OF ONE OF THE MOTORS LISTED IN THE SOLICITATION. AS NOTED ABOVE, THIS WAS STATED IN THE NOTE UNDER BLOCK 4 OF CLAUSE 2.102 (B) OF THE INVITATION. THIS CONVERSATION WAS FOLLOWED BY YOUR LETTER OF MAY 12, 1969, IN WHICH YOU REQUESTED THE GOVERNMENT TO DEFER PLACEMENT OF AN ORDER ELSEWHERE UNTIL YOU HAD EXHAUSTED ALL POSSIBILITIES OF CONVINCING THE GOVERNMENT THAT YOUR PRODUCT WAS ACCEPTABLE. SINCE IT HAD BEEN DETERMINED THAT YOUR OFFER WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE, IT WAS DECIDED THAT AWARD SHOULD BE MADE TO THE NEXT LOW BIDDER, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (GENERAL ELECTRIC) WHO HAD SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL BASED ON SUPPLYING ITS OWN MOTOR CITED IN THE SOLICITATION. HOWEVER, UNDER THE TERMS OF A BASIC ORDERING AGREEMENT THEN IN EFFECT BETWEEN GENERAL ELECTRIC AND THE GOVERNMENT, B0A700-67-A 0052, ANY ORDERS FOR THE MOTOR IN QUESTION WERE TO BE PLACED UNDER THAT AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, THE PROCUREMENT ACTION WAS FORMALIZED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A DELIVERY ORDER ON MAY 28, 1969, UNDER THE BASIC ORDERING AGREEMENT RATHER THAN BY THE ISSUANCE OF A FORMAL AWARD UNDER RFP DAS700- 69-R-5349, AND THIS WAS THE REASON FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF THE RFP.

ON JULY 14, 1969, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER RECEIVED A LETTER FROM KELLY AIR FORCE BASE STATING THAT AN EVALUATION HAD BEEN MADE OF THE DRAWINGS OF YOUR MOTOR AND THAT THE DEPTH OF THE SHAFT SLOT WAS INCORRECT. FURTHER, IT STATED THAT THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MOUNTING HOLES AND MOUNTING CIRCLE WERE MISSING. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS DATA AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF ROTATION, DUTY, LIFE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS WERE PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF GENERAL ELECTRIC AND THAT EFFORTS TO OBTAIN THIS DATA FROM AIR FORCE SOURCES HAD BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL. IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT YOUR FIRM MIGHT SEEK QUALIFICATION DIRECTLY WITH GENERAL ELECTRIC. IT WAS NOT UNTIL SEPTEMBER 16, 1969, THAT YOU WERE NOTIFIED OF THIS EVALUATION, AT WHICH TIME YOU WERE ALSO ADVISED THAT THE MOTORS HAD BEEN ORDERED FROM GENERAL ELECTRIC.

IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1969, TO THE DEFENSE CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CENTER, YOU PROTEST THE PROCUREMENT OF THE MOTORS FROM GENERAL ELECTRIC AT A MUCH HIGHER PRICE, STATING THAT THE PROCUREMENT WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 12, SECTION 1-1201 (A) OF ASPR, WHICH STATES, IN PERTINENT PART, THAT:

"(A) PLANS, DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS OR PURCHASE DESCRIPTIONS FOR PROCUREMENTS SHALL STATE ONLY THE ACTUAL MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND DESCRIBE THE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES IN A MANNER WHICH WILL ENCOURAGE MAXIMUM COMPETITION AND ELIMINATE, INSOFAR AS IS POSSIBLE, ANY RESTRICTIVE FEATURES WHICH MIGHT LIMIT ACCEPTABLE OFFERS TO ONE SUPPLIER'S PRODUCT, OR THE PRODUCTS OF A RELATIVELY FEW SUPPLIERS. ITEMS TO BE PROCURED SHALL BE DESCRIBED BY REFERENCE TO THE APPLICABLE SPECIFICATIONS OR BY A DESCRIPTION CONTAINING THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS. WHEN SPECIFICATIONS ARE CITED, ALL AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS THEREOF, APPLICABLE TO THE PROCUREMENT, SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AND THE IDENTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE THE DATES THEREOF. DRAWINGS AND DATA FURNISHED WITH SOLICITATIONS SHALL BE CLEAR AND LEGIBLE." IN YOUR LETTER YOU ALSO SET FORTH THE FOLLOWING VIEWS ON THE VARIOUS TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF YOUR MOTOR WHICH HAD BEEN REPORTED TO BE UNACCEPTABLE. YOU STATE THAT THE .190 DEPTH OF THE SHAFT SLOT SHOWN ON YOUR DRAWING WAS OBTAINED FROM A P/N 5BA25JJ515B (THE GENERAL ELECTRIC PART NUMBER) MOTOR LISTED IN THE RFP DESCRIPTION AND IF INCORRECT, MOTOR 5BA25JJ515B WAS ALSO INCORRECT. IF THE DEPTH SLOT WAS INCORRECT, YOU STATED THAT SAAMA MUST KNOW THE CORRECT DIMENSIONS. CONCERNING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MOUNTING HOLES, YOU STATE THAT THESE DIMENSIONS WERE SPECIFIED BY AMENDMENT 0001 TO THE RFP, WHICH YOU ACKNOWLEDGED, AND WERE LATER ADDED TO YOUR DRAWING. ALSO, YOU STATED THAT THE FOUR CORNER MOUNTING HOLES WERE SHOWN LOCATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPACING SPECIFIED BY AMENDMENT 0001, EXCEPT MORE ACCURATELY. ADDITIONALLY, YOU POINT OUT THAT WHILE THE DUTY CYCLE WAS NOT SPECIFIED, THE MOTOR CAN BE RATED FOR ANY DUTY THAT MOTORS OF THIS TYPE FROM PREVIOUS PROCUREMENTS WERE RATED FOR, INCLUDING CYCLING, OR CONTINUOUS DUTY IF NECESSARY. CONCERNING LIFE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS, YOU EXPRESSED DISBELIEF THAT THESE REQUIREMENTS COULD BE CONSIDERED PROPRIETARY DATA OF ONE COMPANY. YOU STATE THAT THE INITIAL PROCUREMENT OF THESE MOTORS MUST HAVE BEEN COVERED BY GOVERNMENT SPECIFICATIONS, IF NOT FOR THE MOTOR, CERTAINLY FOR THE END ITEM WITH WHICH THE MOTOR IS USED.

WHILE IT APPEARS THAT THE PROCURING ACTIVITY IS IN SUBSTANTIAL AGREEMENT WITH YOU CONCERNING THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MOUNTING HOLES, THE ACTIVITY STATES THAT ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEERING SUPPORT ACTIVITY, THE DEPTH OF THE SHAFT SLOT IS .160 .005, NOT .190. CONCERNING YOUR STATEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DUTY CYCLE, LIFE, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ELECTRICAL REQUIREMENTS, YOU ASSUME THAT AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL PROCUREMENT THE GOVERNMENT HAD COMPLETE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS MOTOR. OF COURSE, IF THE GOVERNMENT DID IN FACT HAVE COMPLETE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THIS MOTOR, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO FURNISH SPECIFICATIONS, PURSUANT TO ASPR 1 -1201, STATING ONLY THE ACTUAL MINIMUM NEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND DESCRIBING THE ITEM IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE COMPETITION AS WELL AS ELIMINATING, INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, FEATURES WHICH MIGHT LIMIT OFFERS TO ONE SUPPLIER'S PRODUCT OR THE PRODUCT OF A RELATIVELY FEW SUPPLIERS. HOWEVER, THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE MOTOR WAS DEVELOPED BY GENERAL ELECTRIC DURING THE COURSE OF ITS DEVELOPMENT OF THE END ITEM AND THE ONLY INFORMATION POSSESSED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS THAT CONTAINED IN AMENDMENT NUMBER 0001, THE REMAINING DATA BEING PROPRIETARY TO GENERAL ELECTRIC AND UNAVAILABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT EVEN FOR PURPOSES OF COMPARATIVE EVALUATION. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION AND EASTERN INDUSTRIES DIVISION, LFE, INC; WERE GIVEN SUFFICIENT DATA BY GENERAL ELECTRIC TO MANUFACTURE THE MOTORS FOR THE END ITEM AND WERE QUALIFIED BY GENERAL ELECTRIC AS APPROVED SOURCES OF SUPPLY. MOREOVER, YOU WERE PUT ON NOTICE OF THE UNAVAILABILITY OF SPECIFICATIONS, PLANS AND DRAWINGS BY CLAUSES 2- 102 AND 2-104 OF THE SOLICITATION. FOR THAT MATTER THE NOTE FOLLOWING BLOCK 4 OF SECTION (B) OF CLAUSE 2-102, WHICH YOU CHECKED, ALSO PUT YOU ON NOTICE THAT IF YOU OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE MOTOR, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SUPPLY SUFFICIENT DATA CONCERNING THE MOTORS CITED IN THE ITEM DESCRIPTION, AS WELL AS DATA CONCERNING YOUR MOTOR, TO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE A COMPLETE EVALUATION OF YOUR MOTOR. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT YOU FURNISHED SUFFICIENT DATA FOR A COMPLETE EVALUATION OF YOUR MOTOR.

ADDITIONALLY, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER STATES THAT THE GENERAL POLICIES OF ASPR 1-313, PROCUREMENT OF PARTS, WERE CONSIDERED TO BE APPLICABLE TO THIS PROCUREMENT SINCE IT CONSISTED OF THE PROCUREMENT OF SPARE PARTS FOR MILITARY EQUIPMENT. THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FROM SECTION 1-313 (C) WAS CONSIDERED TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE:

"* * * THE EXACTING PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIALLY DESIGNED MILITARY EQUIPMENT MAY DEMAND THAT PARTS BE CLOSELY CONTROLLED AND HAVE PROVEN CAPABILITIES OF PRECISE INTEGRATION WITH THE SYSTEM IN WHICH THEY OPERATE, TO A DEGREE THAT PRECLUDES THE USE OF EVEN APPARENTLY IDENTICAL PARTS FROM NEW SOURCES, SINCE THE FUNCTIONING OF THE WHOLE MAY DEPEND ON LATENT CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH PART WHICH ARE NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN."

WE FIND NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO APPLICABILITY OF ASPR 1-313 TO THIS PROCUREMENT.

UNDER 10 U.S.C. 2310 (B), THE FINDINGS ISSUED BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER AS JUSTIFICATION FOR NEGOTIATION OF THE PROCUREMENT UNDER 10 U.S.C. 2304 ARE FINAL. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THE RECORD, SHOWING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT HAVE COMPLETE, CURRENT MANUFACTURING DATA FOR THE MOTOR, OR DATA CONCERNING THE TESTING PROCEDURES TO BE USED TO INSURE THAT THE MOTOR, ONCE MANUFACTURED, WOULD FUNCTION SATISFACTORILY IN THE END ITEM, IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE PROCURING ACTIVITY'S ACTION. THEREFORE SEE NO LEGAL BASIS FOR OBJECTING TO THE PROCUREMENT OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC MOTOR, AND YOUR PROTEST IS ACCORDINGLY DENIED.

HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT 10 U.S.C. 2304 (G) AND ASPR 1 300.1 AND 3-101 ENVISION COMPETITION, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT IN THE FUTURE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS BE MADE BY THE PROCURING ACTIVITY TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS OR TEST CRITERIA FOR THIS MOTOR TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND FOR DETERMINATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE ACCEPTABILITY OF ARTICLES OFFERED.