_________________________________________________
 
               DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  August 31, 1992
            ________________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 11985-P
 
                      VALIX FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP I,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                                 Respondent.
 
        Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        Peter D. Butt, Jr.,  Katherine A. Andrias, William T.  Mohn,
   and  Geoffrey D.  Chun, Naval  Regional  Contracting Center,  and
   Demetria T. Carter and Charles P. Mead, Jr., Naval Supply Systems
   Command,  Department of  the Navy,  Washington,  DC, counsel  for
   Respondent.  
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On August  25, 1992, the  Board docketed a protest  filed by
   Valix  Federal  Partnership  I  (VALIX).    On  April  16,  1992,
   respondent, the Department  of the Navy, had  issued solicitation
   number N00600-92-R-1394  for automatic data  processing equipment
   to be  installed at  its Naval  facility in Arlington,  Virginia.
   VALIX alleged that respondent had violated applicable statute and
   regulation in  that  the contracting  officer (1)  had failed  to
   remove unjustified restrictive  solicitation specifications which
   exceed the  Government's requirements, and (2) had failed to set-
   aside the procurement for small business.
 
        On August 28,  1992, the protester submitted to  the Board a
   motion to dismiss which states:
 
              Valix Federal Partnership  I ("Protester") hereby
        withdraws  its protest  and requests  that the  General
        Services  Administration  Board   of  Contract  Appeals
        dismiss the protest with prejudice.
 
              The  counsel  for  the  Department  of  the  Navy
              ("Respondent") is aware of this motion  and
              has no objection to the motion.
 
        Accordingly,  the  motion  is granted,  and  the  protest is
   DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Rule 28(a).
   ________________________________
 
                                      JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                      Board Judge