Westech Gear Corporation v. Department of the Navy

907 F.2d 1225, 36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,922, 285 U.S. App. D.C. 219, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12477, 1990 WL 104189
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJuly 27, 1990
Docket89-5057
StatusPublished

This text of 907 F.2d 1225 (Westech Gear Corporation v. Department of the Navy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Westech Gear Corporation v. Department of the Navy, 907 F.2d 1225, 36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,922, 285 U.S. App. D.C. 219, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12477, 1990 WL 104189 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Opinion

Opinion PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM:

Westech Gear Corporation brought an action in district court against the Department of the Navy seeking an injunction to prohibit the Navy from reverse engineering Westech’s ram tensioner, a device used to facilitate ship-to-ship transfers at sea. Westech claimed that the Navy did not first exhaust three alternatives before deciding to reverse engineer the device, in violation of applicable Department of Defense Acquisition Regulations. United States District Judge Harold H. Greene concluded that the Navy’s decision to reverse engineer was in conformance with the regulations and granted summary judgment for the Navy. Westech Gear Corp. v. Department of the Navy, 733 F.Supp. 390 (D.D.C.1989). Westech appeals that order.

With one exception, we adopt as our own the reasons stated by Judge Greene in his excellent opinion and conclude, as he did, that the Navy had considered and appropriately rejected each of the three alternatives in question prior to deciding to reverse engineer. Id. at 393-96. In explaining why the Navy had properly rejected one of the three alternatives, that of open competition using “brand name or equal” specifications, the judge assumed, erroneously, that certain litigation that bore on the reasonableness of that alternative was being pursued at that time. Id. at 394. In fact, it had not yet commenced. This error, however, was irrelevant to the outcome as Judge Greene found that the Navy’s rejec *1226 tion of this alternative was independently supported by its conclusion that cost considerations made it necessary to have ram tensioners of identical specifications. Id. at 396.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Westech Gear Corp. v. Department of the Navy
733 F. Supp. 390 (District of Columbia, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
907 F.2d 1225, 36 Cont. Cas. Fed. 75,922, 285 U.S. App. D.C. 219, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 12477, 1990 WL 104189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westech-gear-corporation-v-department-of-the-navy-cadc-1990.