DENIED: February 9, 1994
                                                
 
 
                             GSBCA 12709-P
 
 
                  TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT GROUP, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  DULLES NETWORKING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        John  A. McEwan, President  of Technology Advancement Group,
   Inc., Chantilly, VA, appearing for Protester. 
 
        Donald S. Safford, Office of General Counsel, Naval Regional
   Contracting  Center  Detachment,  Long Beach,  CA;  and  Anita M.
   LeBlanc, Office of General Counsel, Naval Supply Systems Command,
   Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        B.  David Whitehead,  Vice  President  of Dulles  Networking
   Associates, Inc., Sterling, VA, appearing for Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), NEILL, and GOODMAN.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge. 
 
        Technology Advancement Group, Inc.  (TAG), protests that the
   Department  of  the   Navy  acted  improperly  in   conducting  a
   procurement  for  the  supply of  microcomputer  systems.   In  a
   decision issued on January 24,  1994, we dismissed for failure to
   state a valid  basis of protest those allegations  which we could
   not  discern as  being  linked to  a  violation of  a  statute or
   regulation.  We now deny the remaining counts.
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        1.   On May 21, 1993, the Navy requested proposals to supply
   three   Pentium  processor   computer   systems  to   the   Naval
   Postgraduate  School  in  Monterey, California.    Protest  File,
   Exhibit 1.   The agency said that it "intend[ed] to make a single
   award   to  the   technically  acceptable,   responsible  offeror
   proposing the lowest price for all items."  Id. at 46.
 
        2.   The solicitation  contained several  specifications for
   system components, among which were the following:
 
             System   Board:     Intel   Pentium  66   MHz
             [megahertz]  CPU  [central  processing  unit]
             (expandable to  dual Pentium  66 MHz and  100
             MHz processors).
 
             . . . .
 
             Video:    . . .  NEC5FG  17" Multisync  Color
             Monitor with Lens (1024x768, .28 Dot  Pitch);
             FCC [Federal Communications Commission] Class
             B certified.
 
             . . . .
 
             Additional  Specifications:   One year  Parts
             and  Labor Warranty  with  24 hour  telephone
             support.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit  1 at 3.   The agency directed offerors  to
   provide with their proposals descriptive literature "which allows
   a  complete  review and  verification  that  all aspects  of  the
   specifications have been complied with."  Id. at 4, 44.
 
        3.   The  solicitation also  stated  that "[t]he  Government
   requires  delivery to  be  made 30  days  after contract  award."
   Protest File, Exhibit 1 at 9.
 
        4.   Each offeror  was required  to submit, as  part of  its
   proposal,  a certificate  of independent price  determination, in
   which it certified that --
 
                  (1)  The prices in this  offer have been
             arrived  at independently,  without, for  the
             purpose  of   restricting  competition,   any
             consultation,  communication,  or   agreement
             with any other offeror or competitor relating
             to (i) those  prices, (ii)  the intention  to
             submit  an  offer,  or (iii)  the  methods or
             factors used to calculate the prices offered;
 
                  (2)  The prices in  this offer have  not
             been and  will not be knowingly  disclosed by
 
             the offeror,  directly or indirectly,  to any
             other  offeror  or  competitor  before  . . .
             contract   award   . . .   unless   otherwise
             required by law; and
 
                  (3)  No attempt has been made or will be
             made  by  the  offeror  to induce  any  other
             concern to submit  or not to submit  an offer
             for the purpose of restricting competition.
 
   Protest File,  Exhibit 1 at  26; 48 CFR 52.203-2  (1993) (Federal
   Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.203-2).
 
        5.   Both TAG and Dulles Networking  Associates, Inc. (DNA),
   submitted  proposals in response  to this solicitation.   Protest
   File, Exhibits 3, 4.
 
        6.   TAG's proposal contained this statement:
 
             Video:
 
             . . .  17"  NEC  5FG Color  Monitor  and Lens
             (Non-Interlaced   with   a    74MHz   Refresh
             1280x1024, .28mm Dot Pitch)
 
             NOTE:    The  NEC  5FG  IS  NOT  FCC  Class B
             Certified but it is MPRII Certified.
 
   Protest File, Exhibit 4.   DNA's proposal included the line: "NEC
   5FG 17"  Multisync Color Monitor with  Lens (1024 x 768,  .28 dot
   pitch."  DNA  made no reference to  whether this monitor was  FCC
   Class B certified.  Id., Exhibit 3 at 1.  
 
        7.   After evaluating all offerors' technical proposals, the
   Navy determined that  TAG's proposal was technically  acceptable.
   Protest File,  Exhibit 5 at 6.   The contracting officer  did not
   conduct discussions with TAG as to that firm's technical proposal
   because he viewed the proposal as  fully acceptable.  Declaration
   of Robert Cengia (Jan. 26, 1994) (Cengia Declaration) at 1.
 
        8.   The Navy determined that DNA's proposal was technically
   unacceptable  and  did not  have  a  reasonable chance  of  being
   selected for award.  The absence of specification as to FCC Class
   B certification of the monitor was not among the reasons for this
   conclusion.  Protest File, Exhibit 5 at 9-10.  DNA was eliminated
   from the competitive range.   Id., Exhibit 6.  DNA protested this
   action to the  contracting officer, however, and  he subsequently
   reinstated the firm to the competition.  Id., Exhibits 7, 8.  The
   Navy   then  on  October  7  discussed  with  DNA  the  perceived
   deficiencies in the proposal.  Id., Exhibit 10 at 1.
 
        9.   TAG and  DNA were both  asked to submit best  and final
   offers (BAFOs) no  later than October 14.   Protest File, Exhibit
   10; Cengia  Declaration, Attachment 1.   There is no  evidence in
   the  record that  TAG's BAFO is  different in any  way other than
   price from its initial proposal.  
 
 
        10.  On October  21, the contracting  officer concluded that
   both offers were technically acceptable  and that DNA was in line
   for award because its price of $96,870 was lower than TAG's price
   of  $115,270.  He  then checked  DNA's commercial  and Government
   references  for  the purpose  of  determining whether  DNA  was a
   responsible prospective  contractor.   The  responses were  "very
   positive;" he was  convinced that DNA was responsible.   Thus, on
   October 26,  he decided  that award should  go to  DNA.   Protest
   File, Exhibit 13; Cengia Declaration at 2.
 
        11.  On  October 29, the Navy's contract negotiator for this
   procurement informed  TAG in  a telephone  conversation that  the
   agency intended to award the contract to DNA.  This was the first
   time  she  had  mentioned  the  name  of  a  competitor  in  this
   procurement to either  TAG or DNA.  Declaration  of Carolyn Rizza
   (Jan. 26, 1994).   The contracting officer did not  reveal to DNA
   that  TAG was  a competitor  until November  2 (see  Finding 13).
   Cengia Declaration at 4; Affidavit  of David N. Leibman (Jan. 26,
   1994) (Second Leibman Affidavit)   3.
 
        12.  On  November 1, TAG  wrote to the  contracting officer,
   objecting that DNA  should be disqualified from  the competition.
   TAG contended that  DNA's proposal had been prepared  by David N.
   Leibman, an individual who had  formerly worked for TAG, where he
   "oversaw  the  development  and  preparation  of  the  TAG  quote
   submitted in response to  the solicitation at issue. . . .   This
   included the selection and integration of components specifically
   designed in response  to the solicitation."  TAG  maintained that
   "[a]fter obtaining specific  knowledge of the TAG  quotation, Mr.
   Leibman unexpectedly  resigned his  position under  circumstances
   less than desirable and yet  unresolved. . . .  [W]e suspect  the
   DNA  bid  was  calculated  with  full  knowledge  of  TAG's bid."
   Protest File, Exhibit 14 at 1-2.  TAG additionally urged that "it
   is most qualified to provide the specified products and services,
   and  [is] most  likely to  perform with  in [sic]  the contract's
   delivery  period" because of its "past documented performance and
   present verifiable capabilities."   Id. at 2.   Specifically, TAG
   asserted  that  it  could  meet  the  24-hour  technical  support
   requirement and questioned  whether DNA could; and  further, that
   TAG "has already engineered and documented a NEC 5FG monitor that
   complies with  that specification," whereas DNA could  not do so.
   Id. at 2-3.
 
        13.  The  contracting officer  understood this  letter as  a
   protest making two allegations.   The primary charge was that DNA
   was not a responsible prospective contractor.  Cengia Declaration
   at 3.   He responded to  this allegation in two ways.   First, he
   asked DNA's  president and Mr.  Leibman by telephone  whether the
   allegations were true.  The DNA officials denied them.  Id. at 3,
   4.  Second, he asked  the Defense Contract Management Area Office
   (DCMAO) in  Baltimore, Maryland, to perform a pre-award survey of
   DNA.   The  survey was  to  "include a  review/analysis of  [the]
   company's ability to comply with all the terms and conditions set
   forth  in  the contract."    Protest  File,  Exhibit 16.    DCMAO
   Baltimore  was expressly asked  "to have an  Intel representative
   (engineer)  available  when  verifying  contractor's  ability  to
   provide the required supplies in  a timely manner."  Id., Exhibit
   20 at 5th unnumbered page.
 
 
        14.  The  pre-award survey was  performed in mid-November by
   DCMAO  Baltimore.    All   capabilities  examined  --  technical,
   production,  quality  assurance,  and  financial  --  were  found
   satisfactory.   By report dated  November 19, the  survey manager
   recommended award to DNA.   Protest File, Exhibit 20.  The survey
   team specifically found that DNA had an "estimated ship date" for
   the Pentium  processors of  the first week  in December;  DNA had
   provided a letter from its supplier confirming this.  Id. at 8th-
   9th unnumbered pages; see also id., Exhibit 19.  In addition, the
   team learned that DNA had  made prior deliveries of similar items
   to  another  Government agency,  and  to  a commercial  firm,  on
   schedule.   Id., Exhibit 20  at 13th-14th unnumbered pages.   The
   team  also found that DNA had  arrangements for 24-hour technical
   support.  Id. at 8th unnumbered page.
 
        15.  The contracting officer also considered TAG's  November
   1 letter  to be protesting  that DNA's  monitor did not  meet the
   solicitation's  requirement that  the  monitor  be  FCC  Class  B
   certified.   He paid scant  attention to this charge  because TAG
   had specifically proposed  to offer a monitor which  did not meet
   the requirement, so "it was clear to  [him] that TAG had not been
   prejudiced."  Cengia Declaration at 3-4.
 
        16.  The contracting officer considered  the DCMAO pre-award
   survey,  together with the information he had previously obtained
   regarding DNA, and reconfirmed his earlier determination that DNA
   was  a responsible prospective contractor.  Cengia Declaration at
   4.  He awarded the contract to DNA on November 23.  Protest File,
   Exhibit 22 at 1.
 
        17.  On December 15,  DNA told the contracting  officer that
   it had learned that 5FG  monitors "have been discontinued by NEC,
   and replaced by the superior NEC 5FGp."  DNA asked for permission
   to substitute 5FGp monitors for  the 5FGs.  Protest File, Exhibit
   24.    The  contracting officer  authorized  the  modification on
   December 16,  at no  cost to  the Government.   In  doing so,  he
   stated, "The  requirement for FCC Class B certification is hereby
   removed."  Id., Exhibit 25.
 
        18.  The  systems were  actually  shipped  to  the  Navy  on
   December 27.  Protest File, Exhibit 27.  They were received on or
   about December 29.  Cengia Declaration at 5.
 
        19.  Mr.  Leibman, DNA's  director of  business development,
   was director of operations at TAG until  April 30 or May 1, 1993,
   when he resigned.  Affidavit of David N. Leibman  (Dec. 27, 1993)
   (First Leibman Affidavit)    2; Attachment to letter  from TAG to
   Board (Jan. 12, 1994).  He went to work for DNA about three weeks
   later.  First Leibman Affidavit   2.  He states:
 
 
             I  emphatically deny  having "overs[een]  the
             development and preparation of the TAG  quote
             submitted in response  to the solicitation at
             issue."   It is physically impossible to have
             developed  and prepared a  quote on behalf of
             TAG in  response to a solicitation  which was
             not  released until more than 3 weeks after I
             left my employment there!
 
   Id.   8.  Mr. Leibman also states that "[m]emory prices had risen
   dramatically from the time of the initial proposal to the time of
   the  Best  and  Final  Offer, [and]  other  component  prices had
   fallen."   Thus, he maintains, any knowledge he once had of TAG's
   pricing was outdated by the time of BAFOs.  Id.   10.
 
        20.  Mr. Leibman  "spent a  great amount  of time  preparing
   [DNA's] response to  the solicitation."  First  Leibman Affidavit
     6.    He  states, however,  that  he had  no  knowledge  of the
   products or  prices in TAG's initial  proposal and BAFO  -- or of
   the prices charged  to TAG for those products  by TAG's suppliers
   -- prior  to the submission  of that  proposal and BAFO.   Second
   Leibman Affidavit   4.   Further, he states that  neither he, nor
   to  his knowledge  any DNA  employee,  had any  contact with  TAG
   regarding this procurement prior to submission of BAFOs.  Id.
 
                               Discussion
 
        TAG has alleged that in  the course of this procurement, the
   Navy violated  a statute or  regulation in three  different ways:
   its conduct of discussions was inadequate; its determination that
   DNA  is a responsible prospective contractor was unjustified; and
   it disclosed  to a competitor, prior  to the call for  BAFOs, the
   fact that  TAG  had submitted  a  proposal.   In its  brief,  TAG
   devotes principal  attention to the allegations  that discussions
   were inadequate.  
 
        Before  turning to TAG's  specific complaints, we  note that
   protester  appears to  have a  fundamentally flawed  view of  the
   procurement in  which it competed.   TAG  seems to  be under  the
   impression that because it is (assertedly) a superior company  to
   DNA, and  has (assertedly) sold and serviced more of the sorts of
   computer  systems  that   the  Navy  is  buying   here,  in  some
   unspecified way,  it has  a better  claim to  the contract.   See
   Finding  12.     This   impression  is   inconsistent  with   the
   solicitation's express  statement that the  lowest-priced offeror
   which  passed minimal  standards of  technical  acceptability and
   responsibility would receive  the contract.  Finding 1.   DNA won
   the competition  because its  price was less  than TAG's  and the
   Navy found that it met those standards.
   Discussions
 
 
        The  Federal  Acquisition  Regulation  requires  that  in  a
   negotiated  procurement, whenever  the contracting  officer holds
   discussions  with  offerors,   he  shall  advise  each   firm  of
   deficiencies  in its  proposal so  that the  company is  given an
   opportunity  to  satisfy  the  Government's  requirements.    FAR
   15.610(c)(2).  
 
        As  initially phrased, TAG's  complaint was that  the Navy's
   conduct of discussions was improper because DNA, but not TAG, was
   alerted by the Navy to deficiencies the agency saw in the initial
   technical proposals.    The  reason  for  the  Navy's  action  is
   obvious:  the agency perceived no deficiencies in TAG's proposal,
   so discussions  with TAG would  have been pointless.   Finding 7.
   Given the  Navy's analysis of  the proposal, we cannot  fault the
   failure to negotiate.
 
        TAG now  argues that  discussions with  it should  have been
   held because the  firm's initial proposal clearly  took exception
   to a mandatory  specification -- that the monitor  offered be FCC
   Class B certified.  See Findings 2, 6.  If the Navy had mentioned
   this deficiency, TAG  says, the offeror  could have modified  its
   proposal  to make  clear two  things:  (1) that  it was  devoting
   considerable time and money to reengineering the  monitor so that
   it would  comply with  the specification, and  (2) that  it would
   provide  a Class  B  certified  monitor if  it  were awarded  the
   contract.   See  Affidavit of  John A. McEwan  (Jan. 26,  1994) &
   Attachment  2 thereto;  Affidavit of  Philip  Beaulieu (Jan.  26,
   1994)  (Beaulieu Affidavit)  &  Attachments 2,  3 thereto.   "The
   Navy" knew about  these efforts and TAG's intent,  according to a
   TAG employee.  Beaulieu Affidavit at 1.
 
        The  contracting  officer  thought  that  investigating  any
   charges  relating  to   the  Class  B  certification   issue  was
   unnecessary because TAG  suffered no prejudice from  whatever (if
   anything) the Navy did wrong.  He reached this conclusion because
   TAG  explicitly  promised --  in  its  BAFO  as well  as  initial
   proposal -- to supply  a monitor that did not  have the requisite
   certification,  and yet  its  proposal  was adjudged  technically
   acceptable.    Finding 15;  see  also  Findings  2,  7, 9.    His
   reasoning is  consistent with our  rule that "[t]he  integrity of
   the  protest process  does not  permit a  protester to  argue the
   unreasonableness of an interpretation of a solicitation provision
   which the protester itself  held during the procurement."   Xerox
   Corp.,  GSBCA 9862-P,  89-2 BCA    21,652, at  108,923, 1989  BPD
     68, at 21; see also Unit Data Service Corp., GSBCA 10775-P, 91-
   1 BCA   23,501, at 117,853, 1990 BPD   374, at 10.  
 
        Ultimately,  TAG's position  comes down  to this:    TAG had
   pledged  to deviate  from  a specification,  but  it intended  to
   comply with the same requirement  and was making great efforts to
   do so.  It  informally told someone in the Navy  about its intent
   and  efforts,  but  it  never  changed its  proposal  to  make  a
   commitment  that  it would  meet  the  specification.   The  Navy
   ignored  the specification in evaluating proposals; it would have
   accepted a  non-compliant monitor from  TAG (had TAG  offered the
   lowest  price), and did  accept such  a monitor  from DNA.   Now,
   protester concludes, the  Board should permit  it to profit  from
   having submitted  a proposal  that is  admittedly ineligible  for
   award by directing the Navy to reopen discussions for the purpose
   of mentioning this deficiency.
 
 
        We decline to accept this  invitation.  Protests are granted
   only where  an agency's violation  of law was prejudicial  to the
   protester.   Andersen Consulting v.  United States, 959  F.2d 929
   (Fed.  Cir. 1992).   The Navy apparently  ignored compliance with
   the  monitor  certification specification  in  its  evaluation of
   proposals.   This  did not  harm TAG,  however; it  benefited the
   firm,  because it  permitted  TAG  to continue  to  offer a  non-
   compliant  monitor.   TAG was  free  to amend  its proposal  when
   submitting  a  BAFO to  say  that  it  would supply  a  certified
   monitor.   It chose  not to  do so.   This does  not establish  a
   violation  of law  by the  Navy.   Advanced  Management, Inc.  v.
   General  Services   Administration,  GSBCA   11851-P,  93-1   BCA
     25,280, at  125,893, 1992  BPD   188, at  11 ("When  an offeror
   violates the rules of a competition in a material way, it may not
   benefit from any  determination that the Government,  too, made a
   mistake in the conduct of the procurement.").
 
   Responsibility determination
 
        Whether the contracting officer acted permissibly in finding
   DNA a  responsible  prospective contractor  is important  because
   such a finding is  a prerequisite to the award of  any Government
   contract.  FAR  9.103(a), (b).  Before making this determination,
   the  contracting officer  "shall  possess  or obtain  information
   sufficient  to  be   satisfied  that  a   prospective  contractor
   currently meets the applicable standards in [FAR] 9.104-1."   FAR
   9.105-1(a).     These  standards   are  that  to   be  determined
   responsible,  a firm  must  (among other  things)  "[b]e able  to
   comply  with the  required or  proposed  delivery or  performance
   schedule," "[h]ave a satisfactory performance record," "[h]ave  a
   satisfactory  record  of  integrity  and  business  ethics,"  and
   "[h]ave  the  necessary production,  construction,  and technical
   equipment and  facilities, or the  ability to obtain them."   FAR
   9.104-1.  
 
        With regard to  implementation of these provisions,  we have
   held:
 
             [The FAR's] standards  are sufficiently broad
             as  to  require  the contracting  officer  to
             apply  discretionary  business  judgments  in
             determining   the    responsibility   of    a
             prospective contractor.   Concomitantly,  the
             protester's  burden   is  quite   substantial
             because our de novo  review authority must be
 
             tempered in such a highly discretionary area.
             We  will  thus   grant  deference  to   those
             determinations  regarding the  responsibility
             of prospective contractors, without slavishly
             following them.
 
   National BioSystems, Inc.,  GSBCA 10823-P, 90-1 BCA    22,543, at
   113,127, 1989 BPD    384, at 10-11 (quoting Del  Net, Inc., GSBCA
   9178-P, 88-1  BCA   20,342,  at 102,870, 1987  BPD   259,  at 12,
   aff'd, 861 F.2d 728 (table) (Fed. Cir. 1988)).
 
        TAG  challenges   the  reasonableness  of   the  contracting
   officer's   responsibility   determination  in   four   respects.
   Protester maintains  that DNA  should not  have been expected  to
   meet  the Navy's delivery schedule, supply the requisite monitor,
   or provide necessary  technical support.  In  addition, protester
   contends   that   DNA's   certificate    of   independent   price
   determination was patently defective.
 
        TAG  called the contracting  officer's attention to  each of
   these  problems  after a  responsibility  determination  had been
   made.    Findings 10,  12.    The  contracting officer  took  the
   allegations   seriously;   he    decided   to   reconsider    his
   determination, and in compliance with FAR 9.106-1, he requested a
   pre-award survey  of DNA to verify the charges.   Finding 13.  We
   find that the contracting officer's redetermination that DNA is a
   responsible  prospective contractor, based  in large part  on the
   results of  the pre-award survey,  was reasonable.   See Findings
   14, 16.
 
        Delivery of the computer systems in question was required to
   be made within thirty days after contract award.  Finding 3.  The
   pre-award  survey  team  concluded in  mid-November,  based  on a
   letter from DNA's supplier, that  the supplier would ship  system
   components to DNA  by the  first week of  December.  This  should
   have been  in time for delivery  of the completed systems  to the
   Navy by mid-December.  The team also learned that DNA had shipped
   other orders of  similar items on  time.  Finding  14.  Based  on
   this  report and  information he  had  previously compiled  about
   DNA's timely  deliveries, the contracting officer  concluded that
   DNA should be  able to meet the required shipping  date.  Finding
   16.   This  conclusion appears  reasonable.   The  fact that  the
   actual shipment may have been slightly late, Finding 18, does not
   affect this judgment.
 
        TAG  also cautioned the  contracting officer that  DNA could
   not supply monitors that met the solicitation requirement for FCC
   Class B certification.  Finding 12.  As  stated earlier, we agree
   with   the  contracting  officer's  view  that  TAG  suffered  no
   prejudice with  regard to the  monitors.  With reference  to this
   specific charge,  even if  DNA may have  been planning  to supply
   non-certified monitors,  that could  not have  harmed TAG,  which
   expressly promised to supply non-certified monitors.  See Finding
   6.  A proposal is what is contained on its pages; the "subjective
   unexpressed   intent  of  one  of  the  parties  is  irrelevant."
   Andersen  Consulting, 959  F.2d at  934.   Even if  TAG  meant to
   provide certified monitors, had it been awarded the  contract, it
   would not have been obligated to do so.
 
 
        Any concern  the contracting  officer might  have had  about
   DNA's ability to provide the requisite technical  support for the
   computer  systems was  resolved by  the  pre-award survey  team's
   finding that DNA had  made arrangements to provide that  support.
   Finding 14.
 
        TAG's   apprehension  about   the   truthfulness  of   DNA's
   certificate  of independent price determination is misplaced.  As
   the Navy points  out, this certificate by its  words is addressed
   to concerns about  collusion among offerors to fix  prices to the
   Government's detriment.   See Finding 4.  TAG  alleges that David
   Leibman,  who resigned from his  job with TAG  and then worked on
   DNA's proposal, used specific information about TAG's proposal in
   writing DNA's response to the solicitation.  Finding 12.  Even if
   the allegation were  true, it  would not  make DNA's  certificate
   false, for it would not show collusion between the two firms "for
   the  purpose of restricting  competition."  Further,  Mr. Leibman
   has  provided affidavits attesting to  the falsity of the charge,
   Findings 19,  20,  and TAG  -- whose  burden it  is  to show  the
   allegation's validity  --  has provided  in support  only a  very
   general statement  by one  employee.   Beaulieu  Affidavit at  2.
   Whatever rights TAG may have against Mr. Leibman in court, it has
   not  provided  sufficient information  to  the  Board for  us  to
   question  the   reasonableness  of   the  contracting   officer's
   determination  that DNA's record of integrity and business ethics
   is  sufficiently  satisfactory  that  DNA  may  be  considered  a
   responsible prospective contractor.1
 
   Disclosure of information
 
                       
   ____________________
 
        1    In  its   record  submission   brief,  TAG   raised  an
   additional   allegation   as   to   the   contracting   officer's
   determination  of   DNA's  responsibility:   DNA's  certification
   regarding debarment,  suspension, proposed  debarment, and  other
   responsibility matters, which was required by the solicitation to
   be submitted  with the  proposal, was false.   See  Protest File,
                                                  ___
   Exhibit 1 at 29-30; FAR 52.209-5.  This allegation was not raised
   until February  2, 1994, though its  basis was known  at least as
   early as TAG's  letter to the contracting  officer dated November
   1, 1993.   See Finding 12.   The allegation was raised  many more
              ___
   than ten  working  days after  its  basis  was known,  so  it  is
   untimely.  Rule 5(b)(3)(ii).  We therefore do not consider it.
 
        TAG's final  count is that  the Navy violated  provisions of
   the Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C.A.   423(b)(3), (d) (West
   Supp. 1993),  by informing DNA,  prior to submission of  best and
   final offers,  that TAG was  the other competing offeror  in this
   procurement.  The contracting officer and his contract negotiator
   have both sworn  that this allegation is false.  Finding 11.  TAG
   has provided no evidence in support of it.  The count is denied.
 
                                Decision
 
        We find merit in none of TAG's allegations.  The protest  is
   DENIED.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   _________________________          _________________________
   EDWIN B. NEILL                     ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                        Board Judge