common basis, and is certainly applicable in large measure to later testing and evaluation of such materials at the increased temperature range involved in the instant case. Accordingly, a review of the information furnished in the petition reveals that the Petitioner has had considerable previous experience, dating back to the 1920's, in research on magnetic materials. In support of its contention, the Petitioner lists research efforts in developing and evaluating magnetic materials, which must of necessity have included the effects of temperature on materials characteristics, as this is considered a routine test procedure. Although, in describing its research, the Petitioner has failed to distinguish clearly between its own expenditures and those of the Government, it does cite an expenditure of approximately $15 million over the past 40 years, and in addition an expenditure, apparently of its own funds, of at least $1 million "in each of the last three years in areas of work directly related to the subject matter of this contract". While admittedly it is not clear what percentage of the abovementioned expenditures were in fact private funds of the Petitioner, it makes it quite clear that it has had substantial sales of magnetic alloys, for example, in recent years, in excess of $5 million, which expenditures would appear clearly to establish a basis for finding that there has been significant experience in the field related to the contract outside of Governmentfunded work.

Moreover, the NASA technical evaluator notes that, although the $15 million expenditure listed by the Petitioner is not believed to be appropriate in regard to the limited field related to the properties of magnetic and electrical materials capable of operating in the temperature range from 800 degrees to 1600 degrees F., "at best'' it relates to the "general field," which he defines as relating to the "properties of magnetic and electrical materials". The evaluator further notes that many corporations have previously undertaken investigations in the field of magnetic and electrical properties of materials, indicating still further nongovernmental contributions in the pertinent field. Since the evaluator's definition of the so-called "general field" substantially agrees with what is actually considered to be the more appropriate field of technology, it is apparent that Petitioner has submitted adequate information to support a finding, favorable to it, that there has

been not little significant experience in the defined field outside of work funded by the Government.

Furthermore, while the technical evaluator doubts Petitioner's claims regarding the funding of a number of its commercial products, and cites an expenditure by the Government of at least $100 million, which he states Petitioner has received for "extensive engineering, fabrication and upgrading" of certain premium materials utilized by Petitioner in certain of its commercial products, which would perhaps be indicative that the Government has been the principal developer of the field, it is nevertheless not considered that acquisition of exclusive rights in all inventions made or that may be made under the contract would confer a preferred or dominant position on the Petitioner. Not only would the already considerable work performed in the pertinent field of technology, both by the Government and the Petitioner, negate any inference of preference or dominance over the industry as a result of the instant contract, but further support for this finding is furnished by the Petitioner's claim of a not-insignificant patent position in the field and the citation of a number of patents held. Finally, appropriate NASA technical personnel at least inferentially support Petitioner by noting that "success of the contract will depend in large part upon Petitioner's background, knowledge and techniques, and testing devices and processes which have been developed by virtue of their independent programs." The evaluator also agrees that "performance of this contract may not likely generate inventions which would put Petitioner in a dominant patent position."

SECTION 1245.104(a) (4). As concurred in by the NASA evaluator, the finding is made that the present contract requires research and development to be performed by the contractor, using contractor-furnished labor and materials.

SECTION 1245.104(a)(5). The Petitioner has clearly accomplished considerable previous work in the defined field of technology and related fields, and, as noted by the evaluator, it is contemplated that previous techniques used by Petitioner are "expected to be utilized under the contract".

SECTION 1245.104(a)(6). In view of Petitioner's cited expenditures of over $15 million over the last 40 years, and $3 million

in the last three years, in areas the technical evaluator states are "probably applicable to the general field of magnetic and electrical properties of material," which field agrees with the previouslydefined field considered pertinent to the present case, it is quite apparent that the Petitioner has acquired technical competence in this field, as is further evidenced by its patent position, supported by a list of patents furnished in the petition that Petitioner cites as being related to the subject of the contract. Moreover, it submits evidence of its sales amounting to more than $7 million over the last six or seven years of materials including magnetic alloys, iron-cobalt and nickel-cobalt alloys, that is considered clear and convincing proof of