DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: May 3, 1993
                                                      
 
 
                       GSBCA 12011-P-R, 12012-P-R
 
 
                     CENTEL FEDERAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                  and
 
                     FEDERAL COMPUTER CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protesters/Intervenors,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                        INTERGRAPH CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        William A. Roberts, III, J. Eric Andr , Kathleen C.  Little,
   Lucy Gies,  Patricia G. Butler,  M. Lee Doane, J.  Lloyd Horwich,
   and  Peder A.  Garske  of  Howrey &  Simon,  Washington, DC;  and
   Stephannie  A.  Wood of  Cordant, Inc.,  Reston, VA,  counsel for
   protester/ intervenor Centel Federal Systems, Inc.
 
        Gerard  F. Doyle  and  Scott  A. Ford  of  Doyle &  Bachman,
   Washington, DC, counsel for protester/intervenor Federal Computer
   Corporation.
 
        Ellen  D.  Washington,  David  P.  Andross,  and  Thomas  L.
   Frankfurt, Information Technology  Acquisition Center, Department
   of the Navy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Rand  L. Allen, Philip J. Davis, Christopher D. Cerf, Samuel
   D. Walker, Paul F.  Khoury, and James J. Gildea of  Wiley, Rein &
   Fielding,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for  intervenor  Intergraph
   Corporation.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
                                 ORDER
 
        After  the  Board  granted  consolidated  protests,   Centel
   Federal Systems, Inc.  v. Department of the Navy,  GSBCA 12011-P,
   et  al.,  1992  BPD    359  (Nov. 16,  1992),  protester  Federal
   Computer  Corporation moved for reconsideration of the portion of
   the  decision which authorizes further competition in the subject
   procurement.  In  particular, the movant  asked that we  "provide
   some  mechanism which  would  allow  the  offerors  a  reasonable
   opportunity  to   attempt  to   improve  their   scores  in   the
   productivity enhancement features area."  Motion at 3.
 
        We twice granted uncontested requests to suspend proceedings
   on  this motion  until  after  the Department  of  the Navy,  the
   respondent in the case and the agency conducting the procurement,
   had determined how to proceed.  The Navy then said that  it would
   amend the  relevant solicitation  in  the manner  desired by  the
   movant.
 
        At an ensuing telephonic conference, all parties agreed that
   proceedings on the motion should remain suspended until after the
   agency  actually issued  the amendment  in  question.   From that
   date,  the  parties  agreed,  any  party  could  ask  within  the
   following ten working days that further proceedings be scheduled.
   "If no  such request is made,  on the eleventh working  day after
   the date of issuance of the amendment, the  Board may dismiss the
   [motion] with prejudice."  Order (Mar. 19, 1993).
 
        The amendment was issued on April 16, 1993, which means that
   any  request for further proceedings would  have been timely only
   if filed by  April 30.  No  such request was made.   Accordingly,
   the motion for reconsideration is now DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge