___________________________________________
 
                  SUSPENSION OF PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY
                        GRANTED: August 10, 1992
              ___________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 11938-P
 
                   CORPORATE SYSTEMS RESOURCES, INC.,
 
                                        Protester, 
 
                                   v.
 
                      TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        Paralee White and  Donn Milton of Cohen & White, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        William  L. Osteen,  Edwin  W.  Small,  Peter K.  Shea,  and
   Michael L.  Wills, Office  of General  Counsel, Tennessee  Valley
   Authority, Knoxville, TN, counsel for Respondent.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        In  this protest of  Corporate Systems Resources,  Inc., the
   respondent, the Tennessee Valley Authority, has not made an award
   to satisfy its protested requirements.  The agency has refused to
   permit  an 8(a)  award  to protester;  the  agency has  requested
   another company to  submit a proposal in anticipation  of an 8(a)
   award.
 
        Protester   seeks  a   total  suspension  of   the  agency's
   procurement  authority  relating to  the  requirements  at issue.
   While  the  protest  is  pending  before  the Board,  the  agency
   represents that it will  not make an  award and will not  conduct
   discussions  with the  new offeror;  however, the agency  seeks a
   limited  suspension  such  that it  may  receive  and technically
   evaluate the requested proposal.   The agency has not suggested a
   reason  to impose a limited suspension,  other than its assertion
   that  protester would  not be  harmed  by its  evaluation of  the
   proposal. 
 
        Protester  objects  to  the  requested  limited  suspension.
   Protester  contends that  should it prevail  in its  protest, the
   negotiation  posture  of  the  agency  with  protester  could  be
   affected by the receipt of another company's proposal.
 
 
        The agency  has failed  to establish a  sufficient basis  to
   support a limited suspension.  The record does not suggest why it
   is essential  that the  agency move  forward with  the evaluation
   while   this   protest  is   pending.     Accordingly,  effective
   immediately, and to remain in effect until the Board resolves the
   merits  of the  protest  or  dismisses  the  protest,  the  Board
   suspends the related procurement authority of the agency, thereby
   prohibiting the  agency from  receiving (if it  has not  yet done
   so),  opening, or  evaluating  the  proposal  it  has  requested;
   discussing either its  requirements or a potential  proposal with
   any potential offeror;  or otherwise satisfying its  requirements
   expressed  in the protested  procurement.  40  U.S.C.   759(f)(2)
   (1988).
 
                                        ________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge