!R! CALL BCA; EXIT;
 
             _____________________________________________
        
               DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  July 8, 1992
             ______________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 11833-P
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                                 Respondent,
                                 and 
 
                      FEDERAL SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                                 Intervenor.
 
        Stephen L.  Mills,  Vice  President,  Marketing,  Integrated
   Systems Group, Inc., Vienna, VA, appearing for Protester.
    
        Ellen  D.  Washington,  David  P.  Andross,  and  Thomas  L.
   Frankfurt, Information Technology  Acquisition Center, Department
   of the Navy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Richard  J. Conway,  William F.  Savarino,  and C.  Patteson
   Cardwell IV of  Dickstein, Shaprio &  Morin, Vienna, VA,  counsel
   for Intervenor.
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On May  8, 1992,  the protester,  Integrated Systems  Group,
   Inc. (ISG),  filed a  protest with this  Board.   Federal Systems
   Group,  Inc.  (FSG) promptly  intervened.   We held  a prehearing
   conference  on  May 18,  1992,  which  was  attended by  all  the
   parties.   At  that  time,  the  intervenor,  FSG,  directed  our
   attention to certain deficiencies  in the protester's  complaint.
   On  its  face,  the  complaint  failed  to  aver  or  set  out  a
   protestable matter.   We allowed  the protester until 12  noon on
   May  20,  1992, to  amend  its  protest  complaint.   Should  the
   protester have failed to amend  its complaint, we would have been
   compelled to dismiss the complaint as frivolous.  The protester's
   representative   was  well-aware  of   the  deficiencies  of  its
   complaint and that it would have to be amended or be dismissed as
   frivolous.  
 
 
        During a telephone conference on May 20, 1992, the protester
   moved to  dismiss its  protest without prejudice.   Later  in the
   day,  we  held a  second  telephone conference  with  the parties
   during which  the respondent and  the intervenor objected  to the
   protester's  withdrawal of its  protest without prejudice  to its
   later  reinstatement.   Both the  respondent  and the  intervenor
   requested that the  protest be withdrawn with prejudice.   On May
   21,  1992, the protester voluntarily moved to dismiss its protest
   with prejudice, "each party to  bear its own costs and attorney's
   fees."
 
        There  are  currently  motions  pending  before  this  Board
   seeking the  imposition of  sanctions due to  the actions  of the
   protester in  pursuing this protest.   In its motion  to dismiss,
   the protester is  attempting to condition  its motion to  dismiss
   with  prejudice,  on  each  party  bearing  its  own   costs  and
   attorney's fees.  We do not accept the protester's condition.  We
   dismiss the  protest on the  basis of the protester's  request to
   withdraw its  complaint without prejudice.   We will rule  on the
   motions to impose sanctions in due course.
       
                                Decision
 
        Accordingly,  the  protest is  DISMISSED  WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
   The dismissal is to become  a DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE unless the
   protest is reinstated  by the protester within five  working days
   from  the  date of  this  order.   Rule  28(a).   We  had earlier
   declined to suspend the respondent's acquisition authority.
 
                                      ______________________________
                                      JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                      Board Judge