DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: February 24, 1993 GSBCA 11867-P UNIVERSAL AUTOMATION LABS, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent. Michael R. Lemov and Michael L. Sibarium of Winston & Strawn, Washington, DC; and James H. Roberts, III, of Manatt, Phelps, Phillips & Kantor, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. John R. McCaw, Jr., Sybil Horowitz, Nathan Tash, and Vincent A. Salgado, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC; and Ken Dobis, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ, counsel for Respondent. NEILL, Board Judge. AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL This protest was filed with the Board on June 4, 1992, by Universal Automation Labs, Inc. (UAL). UAL protested the conduct of an acquisition of automatic data processing equipment by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). By order dated June 22, 1992, we dismissed this protest without prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement of the parties. Universal Automation Labs, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, GSBCA 11867-P, 1992 BPD 166. Upon joint motion and cause shown, the Board amended the June 22, 1992, dismissal order on September 16, 1992. The amended dismissal order provided for a dismissal without prejudice to refiling on or before December 1, 1992. On December 1, 1992, protester moved to extend the time within which protester may refile its protest to January 15, 1993. Respondent did not object to this motion. We, therefore, granted the motion. Once more protester has moved to extend the time within which it may refile its protest. Protester now seeks to have the time extended until May 13, 1993. This, according to protester, will allow the parties additional time within which to implement the terms of their amended stipulation dated August 11, 1992. Respondent is said to have no objection to the request. Accordingly, the Board's amended dismissal order of December 14, 1992, is once more amended. The current amendment is as follows: (a) this protest is dismissed without prejudice to refiling on or before May 13, 1993; (b) subsequent to that date, this dismissal shall be deemed to be with prejudice, unless a party, before that date, moves for reinstatement of the protest or unless protester, following that date, successfully convinces the Board that respondent has breached a term or failed to comply with a condition of the amended stipulation; and (c) one year from the date of this order, this dismissal shall be deemed to be with prejudice without exception. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge