___________________________________________________________
 
      GSBCA 12079-P DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  October 26, 1992
      ___________________________________________________________
 
        
 
                    GSBCA 12079-P, 12080-P, 12081-P
 
                         HSQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                    WILLIAMS ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor,
 
                                  and
 
                  ROBERTSHAW CONTROL SYSTEMS DIVISION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        Donald  O. Pratt  and  Paul  H.  Sanderford  of  Canterbury,
   Stuber, Pratt, Elder & Gooch, Dallas, TX, counsel for Protester.
 
        Craig  R. Schmauder and  William A. Richards,  Office of the
   Chief Counsel, U.S.  Army Corps of  Engineers, Department of  the
   Army,  Washington,  DC, and  Steven  W.  Feldman, Office  of  the
   District Counsel, U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers,  Huntsville, AL,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
        Alan Dickson  of Epstein  Becker &  Green, Los  Angeles, CA;
   James E.  Moore  of Moore,  Kessler &  Moore, Niceville,  FL, and
   Raymond Fioravanti  of Epstein  Becker &  Green, Washington,  DC,
   counsel for Intervenor Williams Electric Company, Inc.
 
        Robert G. Watt,  Timothy F. Brown, and  David C. Bransdorfer
   of  Watt,  Tieder,  Killian  & Hoffar,  McLean,  VA,  counsel for
   Intervenor Robertshaw Control Systems Division.
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On  October  6, 1992,  HSQ  Technology, Inc.  (HSQ)  filed a
   protest  with the Board protesting the award of a contract by the
   Huntsville Division of the United States Army, Corps of Engineers
   to Robertshaw Control Systems Division.  The protest was docketed
   as GSBCA  12079-P, and  on October 14,  it was  consolidated with
   GSBCA 12080-P and 12081-P.
 
        On October  26, HSQ  filed for  voluntary dismissal  without
   prejudice of GSBCA  12079-P, pursuant to Rule 28(a).   Respondent
   had no objection to the request.
 
        In  accordance  with  the request  by  the  protester, GSBCA
   12079-P is  hereby DISMISSED  WITHOUT PREJUDICE.   The  dismissal
   shall convert to a dismissal  with prejudice on November 9, 1992,
   unless the protest is reinstated prior to that date.
   _______________________________
 
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge