`
 
 
 
                           
 
            ________________________________________________
        
             DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  January 4, 1999
            _______________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 11966-P
 
                           ISTANBUL EKSPRES,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Dogan  Turhan,  President,  Izmir,   Turkey,  appearing  for
   Protester.
 
        Clarence D. Long, III, Office of General Counsel, Department
   of the Air Force, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
                           ORDER OF DISMISSAL
 
        On  August 11, 1992,  protester, Istanbul Ekspres  of Ankara
   Turkey, protested the award of  an overseas shipping contract  by
   the Department of the Air  Force to a competitor, Soyer Nakliyat.
   Protester alleges that it  submitted the lower cost proposal  and
   was thus entitled to the award.  
 
        On August 13, we convened a telephonic prehearing conference
   with  protester's president and counsel for the Department of the
   Air Force participating.   Our protest jurisdiction is limited by
   statute, 40 U.S.C.   759(f)(1) (1988), which provides: 
 
        Upon  request of an interested party in connection with
        any procurement which  is subject to this  section [the
        Brooks   Act]   (including  procurements   subject   to
        delegation  of  procurement  authority),  the board  of
        contract appeals of the General Services Administration
        . . . shall  review  any   decision  by  a  contracting
        officer alleged to violate a statute or regulation.
 
        The Brooks Act defines ADPE in pertinent part:
 
        [T]he term "automatic data processing equipment"  means
        any equipment . . . used in  the automatic acquisition,
        storage,  manipulation,  management,  control, display,
        switching, interchange, transmission,  or reception, of
        data or information-
 
        (i) by a Federal agency, or
 
        (ii) under a contract with a Federal agency which-
 
        (I) requires the use of such equipment, or 
 
        (II)  requires  the  performance of  a  service  or the
        furnishing  of a product which is performed or produced
        making significant use of such equipment.
 
   40 U.S.C.   759(a)(2)(A) (1988).  Procurements not subject to the
   Brooks Act  do not come  within protest jurisdiction.   Arthur S.
   Curtis, GSBCA No. 8867-P, 87-1 BCA   19,632, 1987 BPD   27.  
 
        Protester's president agreed that  the protested procurement
   was not for automatic data processing equipment as defined by the
   Brooks Act,  and has agreed to  withdraw its protest here  and to
   proceed at the  General Accounting Office.   Respondent does  not
   object to the withdrawal.
 
        Pursuant to Rule 28(a)(1), this protest is DISMISSED WITHOUT
   PREJUDICE  to refiling  at  the General  Accounting Office.   The
   protest may not be refiled here.
 
                                   _________________________
                                   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                   Board Judge