B-152684, APR. 14, 1965
Highlights
ESQUIRE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 24. WAS FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT ON A RESTRICTED BASIS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE NO. THE PRIMARY GROUND OF YOUR REQUEST IS THAT "CERTAIN NEW MATERIAL" WAS SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED OR IDENTIFIED BY THE AIR FORCE AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENTATION MADE BY YOU IN BEHALF OF SPACE CORPORATION. THIS "NEW MATERIAL" EMBRACES REFERENCES IN OUR DECISION TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT AND TO DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TEST STAND WAS . ALL OF THIS MATERIAL WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECORD SUBMITTED HERE WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU WHILE THE MATTER WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION.
B-152684, APR. 14, 1965
TO F. TROWBRIDGE VOM BAUR, ESQUIRE:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1965, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 5, 1965, WHICH REJECTED YOUR CONTENTIONS THAT CERTAIN JET ENGINE TEST STAND ENGINEERING DATA DEVELOPED BY SPACE CORPORATION, DALLAS, TEXAS, WAS FURNISHED TO THE GOVERNMENT ON A RESTRICTED BASIS UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE NO. AF 14/604/-5353, AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE USED FOR COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT PURPOSES.
THE PRIMARY GROUND OF YOUR REQUEST IS THAT "CERTAIN NEW MATERIAL" WAS SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED OR IDENTIFIED BY THE AIR FORCE AND CONSEQUENTLY HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE PRESENTATION MADE BY YOU IN BEHALF OF SPACE CORPORATION. THIS "NEW MATERIAL" EMBRACES REFERENCES IN OUR DECISION TO CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT AND TO DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TEST STAND WAS ,UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION UNDER SAID CONTRACT AF14/604/-5353.' ALL OF THIS MATERIAL WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECORD SUBMITTED HERE WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU WHILE THE MATTER WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. YOU URGE, MORE PARTICULARLY, THAT WE ARE IN ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE RECORD AS A WHOLE IS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THAT THE CONTRACT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE PARTIES AS BEING MORE THAN THE USUAL "SUPPLY" CONTRACT AND THAT ITS "PURPOSE AND CHARACTERISTICS WERE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, IN MANY RESPECTS, AS THOSE OF AN R AND D CONTRACT.'
WE HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED IN YOUR LETTER AND HAVE FOUND NO REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR MODIFYING THE FINDINGS IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 5, 1965. THE DECISION IS THEREFORE AFFIRMED.