DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: September 8, 1992
                                                  
 
 
                              GSBCA 11798
 
 
             NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, 
 
                                           Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Jerome  M. Thier,  President  of  Neurological Research  and
   Development Group, appearing for Appellant. 
 
        Edmund W.  Chapman, Personal  Property  Division, Office  of
   General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
                           ORDER OF DISMISSAL
 
        Under  a  three-year   federal  supply  schedule   contract,
   Neurological Research and Development  Group, appellant, sold  to
   the   Government  hospital  patient   room  furniture  valued  at
   $1,094,107.    The  contract  provides  that  the  Government  is
   entitled to an aggregate discount of one percent on the amount of
   sales in  excess of  $208,253.  The  contracting officer  claimed
   that  appellant owed this discount  on the difference between the
   amount of  total sales and  $208,253.  Appellant  maintained that
   the latter figure is an annual one which should  be multiplied by
   the number of  years of the contract, three,  before the discount
   is  taken.   Thus, the  contracting agency, the  General Services
   Administration,  demanded a  refund  of $8,858.54,  and appellant
   insisted that it owes only $4,693.48.
 
        The  appeal  was filed  on  April 14,  1992.   On  April 28,
   appellant elected to  have this case  considered under the  small
   claims procedure.   Rule 13.  After the complaint and answer were
   filed, the  Board convened a  telephonic conference on May  26 to
   clarify  issues and establish a schedule for further proceedings.
   On June 1, the parties  informed us that they had  resolved their
   differences and would submit a joint motion to dismiss the case.
 
 
        On August 31, a "Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice on
   the Basis of a Joint Motion," dated  August 3, was filed with the
   Board.  This document, notwithstanding its title, states that the
   parties seek a dismissal without prejudice to reinstatement.  The
   Stipulation also asks that the Board state in its dismissal order
   the  terms of  a  settlement agreement;  this  agreement was  not
   supplied to us, however.  
 
        In  light of  the  inconsistency  between the  Stipulation's
   title and its prayer,  as well as the  absence of the  settlement
   agreement,  the Board asked Government  counsel to make clear the
   nature of  the  dismissal sought  and to  provide a  copy of  the
   agreement.   Counsel complied  with this request  on September 4.
   He informed us orally that the parties desire a dismissal without
   prejudice  (something which is  clearly stated in  the settlement
   agreement).    He also  filed  a  copy  of the  agreement,  which
   provides that appellant  will pay to the  agency, in lieu of  the
   claimed amount, $6,693.48.
 
        As requested  by the  parties, the  appeal is now  DISMISSED
   WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Rule 28(a).
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge