DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: February 24, 1993 GSBCA 12288-P RHEOMETRICS, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. John W. Polk of Baker & McKenzie, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Vivian A. Philbin, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. LaBELLA, Board Judge. Order This protest was filed on February 5, 1993, by Rheometrics, Inc. (Rheometrics) concerning Solicitation No. DTFH61-93-B-00022 for the acquisition of dynamic shear rheometers, issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation. Rheometrics filed this protest contesting the FHWA's rejection of its bid, contending that it was responsive to the specifications set forth in the solicitation. On February 19, 1993, the Board received a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Dismissal. The parties have agreed to the following: 1. The FHWA decided that Rheometrics' bid was nonresponsive, because attached to the bid was descriptive literature describing a dynamic shear rheometer that did not completely match 2 the specifications set forth in Section C of the solicitation. This is the only reason that the FHWA decided that Rheometrics' bid was nonresponsive. The FHWA evaluated Rheometric's bid in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and did not actually inspect, test, or benchmark Rheometrics' dynamic shear rheometer, and the FHWA's decision was not based on a finding that Rheometrics' equipment, per se, could not meet the specifications set forth in the solicitation. The FHWA evaluated and rejected Rheometrics' bid solely on the face of the bid itself, including the attached descriptive literature, and on nothing else. 2. The FHWA does not dispute that Rheometrics could supply a dynamic shear rheometer which fully meets the specifications set forth in Section C of the solicitation. 3. The FHWA's rejection of Rheometrics bid does not mean that Rheometrics' equipment is defective or deficient in any way. 4. The FHWA's rejection of Rheometrics' bid is not an adverse reflection on the quality or sufficiency of Rheometrics' equipment and is not a reason to doubt the quality or sufficiency of that equipment. 5. Neither the fact that the FHWA rejected Rheometrics' bid, nor the fact Rheometrics filed this protest, will have any bearing in the future on Rheometrics' ability to compete for future sales to the FHWA or to receive full and fair consideration by the FHWA. 6. This protest may be dismissed with prejudice. 7. Each party will bear its own attorney's fees and costs. 8. The persons signing below warrant that they have the authority to sign this stipulation of settlement and dismissal. 3 Accordingly, the protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). __________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge