___________________________________________________________
 
                       ISSUED:  December 1, 1992
      ___________________________________________________________
        
 
                             GSBCA 12081-P
 
                         HSQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                    WILLIAMS ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.,
 
                                  and
 
                  ROBERTSHAW CONTROL SYSTEMS DIVISION,
 
                                           Intervenors.
 
        Donald  O. Pratt  and  Paul  H.  Sanderford  of  Canterbury,
   Stuber, Pratt, Elder & Gooch, Dallas, TX, counsel for Protester.
 
        Craig  R. Schmauder,  William  A.  Richards,  and  Scott  M.
   McCaleb,  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  and  Bert  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, David C.  Bransdorfer, and
   Shelly L.  Ewald of Watt,  Tieder, Killian & Hoffar,  McLean, VA,
   counsel for Intervenor Robertshaw Control Systems Division.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS, PARKER, and VERGILIO.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
                  NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF OPINION UNDER
                            PROTECTIVE ORDER
 
        On December  1, 1992, the  Board issued its opinion  in this
   protest.  The protest was denied in part and dismissed in part as
   untimely filed.
 
        Because the Board's decision contains information considered
   by the  parties to be  procurement sensitive or  proprietary, the
   Board initially issued its decision  subject in its entirety to a
   protective order.   The parties were advised to  inform the Board
   of any redactions they consider appropriate by December  8, 1992.
   The  Board will then decide what portions  of the opinion will be
   made public.
 
 
 
                                           _______________________
                                           ROBERT W. PARKER
                                           Board Judge