___________________________________________________________ DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: December 23, 1992 ___________________________________________________________ GSBCA 12080-P, 12156-P HSQ TECHNOLOGY, INC., Protester/Intervenor, and WILLIAMS ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. Protester/Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent, and ROBERTSHAW CONTROL SYSTEMS DIVISION, Intervenor. Donald O. Pratt and Paul H. Sanderford of Canterbury, Stuber, Pratt, Elder & Gooch, Dallas, TX, counsel for Protester HSQ Technology, Inc. Alan Dickson of Epstein Becker & Green, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel B. Abrahams and Raymond Fioravanti of Epstein Becker & Green, Washington, DC; and James E. Moore and Bert Moore of Moore, Kessler & Moore, Niceville, Florida, counsel for Protester/Intervenor Williams Electric Company, Inc. Craig R. Schmauder, William A. Richards, and Nikki Koulizakis, 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. Robert G. Watt, Timothy F. Brown, David C. Bransdorfer, and Shelly L. Ewald of Watt, Tieder, Killian & Hoffar, McLean, VA, counsel for Intervenor Robertshaw Control Systems Division. PARKER, Board Judge. ORDER On October 5, 1992, HSQ Technology, Inc. (HSQ) filed its protest of the decision of the Huntsville Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers to award a contract to Robertshaw Control Systems Division for procurement, installation and maintenance of a Utility Control System for certain buildings located at Fort Stewart, Colorado. The Board docketed the protest as GSBCA 12080-P. HSQ filed an amended protest on October 26, and on November 13, it filed a second amended protest. Williams Electric Company, Inc. (Williams) filed its protest on November 2 protesting the same contract award. The Board docketed Williams's protest as GSBCA 12156-P. Each protester intervened in the other's protest. On December 18, 1992, the Board received the parties' Stipulation and Agreement, which provided as follows: Pursuant to Rule 28, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure, the Respondent, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Protestors, HSQ Technology, Inc. (HSQ) and Williams Electric Company, Inc. (Williams), and the intervenors in the above-referenced protests, HSQ (GSBCA No. 12156-P), Williams (GSBCA No. 12080-P) and Robertshaw Control Systems Division (Robertshaw) (GSBCA Nos. 12080-P & 12156-P), through their undersigned counsel hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The Respondent admits that sufficient questions exist regarding the Contracting Officer's actions in rescoring proposal evaluations under solicitation no. DACA87-92-R-0178 (Fort Stewart) to warrant corrective action, and the Respondent agrees to undertake corrective action. The Respondent intends to assign the acquisition to a new Contracting Officer, not previously involved in the Fort Stewart acquisition or the similar acquisitions under solicitations DACA87-92- R-0170 and DACA87-92-R-0048, to conduct the necessary corrective action. Specifically, the Respondent intends to provide the new Contracting Officer with any and all information necessary to carry out his or her responsibilities and discretion. The Contracting Officer shall properly and responsibly complete the acquisition in accordance with all applicable acquisition law and regulation. 2. The terms of this Stipulation and Agreement shall not affect the rights of any protestor or intervenor to protest the failure to take corrective action or any improprieties in the corrective action. 3. The Protestors, HSQ and Williams, agree to dismissal of their respective protests. 4. The Respondent and Williams stipulate that Williams shall be considered an appropriate interested and prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs under 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) and Rule 35, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure. 5. The Respondent and HSQ stipulate that HSQ shall be considered an appropriate interested and prevailing party for purposes of awarding costs under 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) and Rule 35, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure. 6. By signing this stipulation, Robertshaw acknowledges that the corrective action proposed by the government renders the protests in which it has intervened moot. In all other respects, Robertshaw objects and excepts to the corrective action and reserves all rights, including rights of protest. 7. The parties agree to dispose of all protected material filed in these protests in accordance with the applicable Protective Order by returning any original copies of the protected material provided by the Respondent in the Rule 4 files to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division within seven calendar days of the execution of this settlement. The Respondent hereby provides authorization for destruction of any authorized copies of the Respondent's protected material within the same seven day period, and also consents that such authorized copies may be returned to the Huntsville Division for storage until time for protesting any awards made as a result of the corrective action have passed. Protected material contained in the deposition and hearing transcripts shall be disposed of as agreed by the parties or ordered by the General Services Board of Contract Appeals. 8. This Stipulation and Agreement shall be signed by counsel for the Respondent, and a copy of the signed Stipulation and Agreement shall be served on each party by facsimile. The Stipulation and Agreement shall then be executed by signature of counsel on each party's facsimile copy of the signature page of the Stipulation and Agreement. A copy of the signed signature page shall be returned to the Respondent by facsimile. The Stipulation and Agreement shall be considered executed when signed signature pages are received from counsel for all parties. Decision In accordance with the request of the parties, these protests are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). The dismissals shall convert to dismissals with prejudice on December 30, 1992, unless the protests are refiled prior to that date. __________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge