_______________________________________________________ DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: October 8, 1992 _______________________________________________________ GSBCA 12050-P THE FILLMORE GROUP, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. Frank C. Fillmore, Jr., President of The Fillmore Group, Ellicott City, MD, appearing for Protester. Vera Meza, Office of Counsel, Protest Litigation Group, U.S. Army Materiel Command, Department of the Army, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Respondent. HENDLEY, Board Judge. ORDER On September 25, 1992, the Board docketed a protest filed by The Fillmore Group. The protester protested the award of solicitation number DAAD05-92-T-9166 for automatic data processing resources to Computer Associates International, Inc., against GSA Schedule Contract GS00K92AGS5514 by the respondent, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The protester alleged that "sole-source contracting authority has been abused in this instance." On September 29, we held a prehearing conference for the purpose of establishing a plan for further proceedings in this protest. On September 30, we suspended the respondent's delegation of procurement authority. A merits hearing was scheduled for November 2. On October 7, the Board received a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice from both parties, which states: Pursuant to Rule 28(a)(1) of the Rules of the GSBCA, Protester The Fillmore Group and Respondent Army Materiel Command, pursuant to an Agreement between the parties, hereby stipulate that the above captioned protest should be dismissed by the Board without prejudice. It will be converted to a dismissal with prejudice in ten working days after a meeting on Relational Data Base Management Systems between Protester and Respondent. The meeting is expected to take place on October 19, 1992. Accordingly, the protest is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). The protest shall be deemed to be dismissed with prejudice on November 3, 1992, unless it is reinstated with the Board by either party on or before that date. The suspension of the respondent's delegation of procurement authority lapses by its own terms. _____________________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge