DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: September 11, 1992
                                                  
 
 
                             GSBCA 11991-P
 
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Stephen L.  Mills, Vice  President of  Marketing, Integrated
   Systems Group, Inc., Vienna, VA, appearing for Protester. 
 
        Clarence D.  Long, III, and  Joseph M. Goldstein,  Office of
   the General  Counsel, Department  of the  Air Force,  and Captain
   John  F.  Ruoff,  Patrick   Air  Force  Base,  FL,   counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge. 
 
                           ORDER OF DISMISSAL
 
        On August 31, 1992, Integrated Systems Group, Inc. protested
   the award by  the Department of the  Air Force of a  contract for
   the  supply  of workstation  server  systems.   According  to the
   complaint,  both bids  which  were  lower  than  protester's  are
   actually  non-responsive, so  award  should  have  been  made  to
   protester.
 
        At  the  initial  prehearing conference,  Air  Force counsel
   stated that the agency would move to dismiss the case for lack of
   jurisdiction.  He presented a classified affidavit which explains
   that the  systems in  question are  being acquired  for use by  a
   military organization that  performs intelligence functions,  and
   that the equipment will be used in those functions.  On the basis
   of  this information, he  maintained that the  systems are exempt
   from the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C.   759(a)(3)(C)(i) (1988), and that
   the Board  consequently does  not have  jurisdiction to  hear the
   protest, 40 U.S.C.    759(f)(1) (1988).  A motion  to this effect
   was filed on September 4.
 
        On  September 11, protester  moved to withdraw  the protest.
   It explained that it  was taking this action  in response to  the
   Government's  jurisdictional argument.   We  have ascertained  by
   telephone  that protester desires that the case be dismissed with
   prejudice.  Respondent has no objection to the request.
 
        The protest is now DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Rule 28(a).
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge