DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: September 16, 1992
                                                            
        
                             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.  
 
        The  parties now  jointly  move that  we  amend that  order.
   Having reviewed their motion and  the reasons provided in support
   of  it and  having  discussed  the matter  with  counsel for  the
   parties in a teleconference, we are convinced that  their request
   is a reasonable one.  We, therefore, grant the motion.    
 
        The Board's dismissal order of  June 22, 1992, is amended as
   follows:  (a)  this  protest is  dismissed  without  prejudice to
   refiling on  or before December  1, 1992; (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