_____________________________________________
 
             DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  January 4, 1999
             _____________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 11957-P
 
                  COMPUTER SALES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                      FEDERAL SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
 
        Ned  W. Livornese,  Colorado Springs,  CO,  and Lorraine  S.
   Cherrick, Vice President and  Associate General Counsel,  counsel
   for Protester Computer Sales International, Inc.
 
        William A. Roberts,  III, Lee Curtis, and Anne  H. Warner of
   Howrey &  Simon, Washington,  DC, counsel  for Protester  Memorex
   Telex Corporation.
 
        COL Riggs  L. Wilks,  Jr., MAJ Charles  R. Marvin,  Jr., and
   CAPT  Sophia  Rafatjah,  Office  of  the  Chief  Trial  Attorney,
   Department of the Army, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Richard J. Conway,  William F. Savarino, and Ferhan  F. Kipe
   of  Dickstein, Shapiro  &  Morin,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for
   Intervenor.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On July 31,  1992, protester, Computer  Sales International,
   Inc., filed  this protest  against the Department  of the  Army's
   award  of  a  contract  for  direct  access  storage  devices  to
   intervenor Federal  Systems Group.   Protester  alleged that  the
   contracting officer violated statute  and regulation in accepting
   intervenor's   proposal,   as   the    proposal's   pricing   was
   mathematically  and materially  unbalanced.   Memorex Telex  also
   filed  a  protest   which  we  docketed  as   GSBCA  11958-P  and
   consolidated with the protest of Computer Sales International.
 
 
        We  convened   a  prehearing  conference   and  developed  a
   prehearing schedule.   On Friday August  14, during a  telephonic
   prehearing conference with counsel for all parties participating,
   counsel for Computer  Sales International advised that  it wished
   to withdraw its  protest.  There were no objections  by the other
   parties.    Computer  Sales  International's  written motion  for
   withdrawal was filed immediately  after the telephone conference.
 
 
        Pursuant to  Rule  28(a)(1), and  by  the agreement  of  the
   parties,  this  protest  is DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE,  to be
   automatically  converted  to  a dismissal  with  prejudice unless
   reinstated within ten calendar days  from the date of this order.
   Rules 28(a)(1), (a)(2).  The protest of Memorex Telex  continues.
   _________________________
 
                                             ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                             Board Judge