!R! CALL BCA; EXIT;
 
 
              ____________________________________________
        
                DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  July 21, 1992
              ____________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 11913-P
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
 
                                                 Respondent.
 
        Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester. 
    
        L.  Benjamin  Young,  Jr., Office  of  the  General Counsel,
   Department  of   Agriculture,   Washington,   DC,   counsel   for
   Respondent.
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On  July 6,  1992, the  Board  docketed a  protest filed  by
   Integrated Systems  Group, Inc.  (ISG).   Respondent, the  United
   States Department  of Agriculture  (USDA), Agricultural  Research
   Service, Greenbelt,  Maryland,  had issued  a  Commerce  Business
   Daily Notice dated April 28, 1992  (Reference Control No. 311-92)
   of its intent to procure automatic data processing  equipment and
   services.   ISG responded  to the notice.   ISG  protested USDA's
   award  on June 4, 1992, of  delivery order number 40-3K06-2-86 to
   Sun  Microsystems  Federal, Inc.,  alleging that  the contracting
   officer (1) failed to evaluate  the proposals in accordance  with
   the stated evaluation criteria, (2) failed to cancel the  noticed
   order  as required  by Federal  Information Resources  Management
   Regulations (FIRMR) section  201-2.001, and (3) failed  to timely
   notify ISG of award of the procurement.
 
        On July 8 we held a prehearing conference for the purpose of
   establishing  a plan  for further  proceedings  in this  protest.
   During the conference, the protester withdrew its request for the
   suspension of  respondent's delegation of  procurement authority.
   We  then canceled  the scheduled suspension  hearing and  did not
   suspend the  procurement.  A  protective order was issued,  and a
   merits hearing was scheduled for August 3.
 
 
 
        On July 20 the parties submitted to the Board a joint motion
   to  dismiss with prejudice  and signed stipulation  of settlement
   agreement.  Accordingly,  the motion is granted,  and the protest
   is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Rule 28(a).
 
                                 _________________________________
                                 JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                 Board Judge