__________________________________________________
 
              DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  November 24, 1992
           __________________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12085-P
 
                      BERKSHIRE COMPUTER PRODUCTS,
 
                                               Protester,
 
                                     v.
 
                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
 
                                               Respondent.   
 
         Edward J.  Walsh, Vice  President, and  Ernest J.  Parsons,
   Marketing  Manager, of Berkshire  Computer Products,  Natick, MA,
   appearing for Protester.
 
         Barbara Robbins, Business and  Administrative Law Division,
   Office  of the  General Counsel,  Washington, DC, and  Richard S.
   Brown,  Business and Administrative  Law Division, Office  of the
   General Counsel, Public Health Service, Rockville, MD, Department
   of Health and Human Services, counsel for Respondent.
    
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
         On October 6,  1992, the Board docketed a  protest filed by
   Berkshire  Computer  Products  (Berkshire).   On  August  20, the
   respondent,  the  Food  and Drug  Administration,  Department  of
   Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, synopsized in the
   Commerce  Business  Daily  its  intent  to  place  an  order  for
   automatic  data  processing equipment  against  Digital Equipment
   Corporation's GSA [General Services Administration] non-mandatory
   schedule  contract.   Berkshire  submitted  a  response  and  now
   protests the award.  It submits:
 
         that  the  agency  has violated  several  fundamental
         procurement regulations and  that the requirement  is
         overly restrictive of competition in that it contains
         unreasonable and  unjustifiable requirements  for (a)
         all  or none  proposals,  and  (b)  only  brand  name
         equipment  . .  .  contrary  to  the  Competition  in
         Contracting Act, FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulation]
         competition  requirements  and  .  .  .  the  related
         requirements of FIRMR.  
 
         On  October  13, we  held a  prehearing conference  for the
   purpose of  establishing a plan  for further proceedings  in this
   protest.   The respondent's delegation  of procurement  authority
   was  suspended  during the  conference.   The  parties  elected a
   merits hearing, which was  held on November 10.   On November 23,
   the respondent filed its posthearing brief.
 
         On  November  24,  we received  the  protester's  motion to
   withdraw, which states:
 
         Berkshire Computer Products, Protester in the  above-
         captioned case, hereby respectfully requests that the
         GSBCA withdraw case no. 12085-P.
 
         On November 24, the respondent  informed the Board that  it
   had no objection to  the dismissal of this protest.   The parties
   agree to a dismissal with prejudice.
 
         Accordingly,  the motion  is granted,  and  the protest  is
   DISMISSED WITH  PREJUDICE.   Rule 28(a).   The suspension  of the
   respondent's delegation  of procurement  authority lapses by  its
   own terms.
   __________________________________
 
                                   JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                   Board Judge