!R! CALL BCA; EXIT; __________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: July 1, 1992 __________________________________________ GSBCA 11894-P INTEGRATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., Protester, and INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent, and SEVERN COMPANIES, INC., Intervenor. William A. Roberts, III, and Anne H. Warner of Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Stephen L. Mills, Vice President, Marketing, appearing for Intervenor Integrated Systems Group, Inc. 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 M. Rosen, and Hilary S. Cairnie of Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, Vienna, VA, counsel for Intervenor Severn Companies, Inc. HENDLEY, Board Judge. ORDER On June 22, 1992, the Board docketed a protest filed by Integration Technologies Group, Inc. (ITG). ITG protested an award for automatic data processing equipment to Severn Companies, Inc. (Severn) by respondent, the Department of the Navy, Information Technology Acquisition Center, Washington, DC, under request for proposal number N66032-9-R-0009, Lot 4. In its protest complaint, ITG alleged that respondent had violated the requirements of governing statute and regulation and the terms of its delegation of procurement authority to the extent that it awarded "a contract to a noncompliant proposal and thereby has failed to properly evaluate proposals and to treat all offerors equally." On June 22 Integrated Systems Group, Inc. (ISG) timely intervened on the side of the protester, and on June 24 Severn timely intervened on the side of the respondent. On June 24, we held a prehearing conference with the parties for the purpose of establishing a plan for further proceedings in this protest. At that conference, respondent did not contest suspension of its delegation of procurement authority. The Board then cancelled the suspension hearing scheduled for that date and issued an order suspending the respondent's delegation of procurement authority as it related to Lot 4 of the solicitation. A protective order and a notice of merits hearing were also issued to the parties. On June 30 the Board received the protester's motion to dismiss, which states as follows: Protestor Integration Technologies Group, Inc. hereby moves the Board to dismiss the above-referenced protest with prejudice. The other parties orally informed this Board that they had no objection to the dismissal of this protest with prejudice. Decision Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). The suspension of respondent's delegation of procurement authority lapses by its own terms. __________________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge