DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: August 6, 1992 
                                                             
 
 
                             GSBCA 11930-P
 
 
                              I-NET, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                                Respondent,
                                  and 
 
                             NATIONS, INC.
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
 
        Richard J.  Webber, Steven L.  Holt, and John J.  O'Brien of
   Arent, Fox, Kintner,  Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, counsel for
   Protester.
 
        Jeffrey I. Kessler, Craig E. Hodge, and Vera Meza, Office of
   Command Counsel, Army  Materiel Command, Department of  the Army,
   Alexandria, VA,   and Gary L. Theodore and  Catherine Anderson of
   U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command,  Fort Monmouth, NJ,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
        Howell  Roger  Riggs,  Jr., Orange  Beach,  AL,  counsel for
   Intervenor.
 
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This protest  was filed with the Board  on July 17, 1992, by
   I-NET, Inc.  (I-NET).   Protester has challenged  the award  of a
   contract  for   automatic  data   processing  systems,   software
   engineering, and support services by the Department  of the Army.
   The award was made to NATIONS, Inc. (NATIONS).  It is protester's
   contention that  the award  was not made  in accordance  with the
   evaluation provisions of the Army's solicitation.  
 
 
        NATIONS has intervened  in this protest as an  intervenor of
   right.   In addition to  convening the parties in  prehearing and
   status conferences, the Board has authorized and the parties have
   responded to various discovery requests.  
 
        On August 5, I-NET  advised the Board in writing that  it no
   longer  wishes  to  pursue  this protest  and  that  counsel  for
   respondent   and  intervenor  have  no  objection  to  its  being
   withdrawn.  
        Accordingly,   pursuant  to  Rule  28(a),  this  protest  is
   dismissed without prejudice.  The dismissal shall be deemed to be
   "with prejudice" five days from  the date of this order unless  a
   party moves that it be reinstated prior to the expiration of that
   period.   The  Board's order of  July 21  suspending respondent's
   delegation  of  procurement  authority,  as  applicable  to   the
   procurement which is  the subject of this protest,  lapses by its
   own terms.  
 
 
                                           ____________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge