___________________________
 
                      DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
                            October 23, 1992
                      ___________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12091-P
 
                    PYRAMID TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
 
                                        Protester, 
 
                                   v.
 
                    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
 
                                        Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                       FEDERAL DATA CORPORATION,
 
                                        Intervenor.
 
        Richard J. Conway, John Linarelli, and J. Andrew Jackson  of
   Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, Vienna, VA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Philip Kauffman,  Paul Grabelle,  Dennis Foley, and  Merilee
   Rosenberg, Department  of  Veterans Affairs,  Office  of  General
   Counsel, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Richard  J. Webber  and Michele  A. Masiowski  of Arent  Fox
   Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On October 8,  1992, Pyramid Technology Corporation  filed a
   pre-award  protest  with the  Board,  which  it  amended  on  the
   following day.  It alleged that the respondent, the Department of
   Veterans  Affairs,  was  improperly procuring  an  automated data
   processing  system.    Protester  recognizes  that  it  is  not a
   participant   in  the   negotiated   procurement;  Federal   Data
   Corporation, an intervenor of right,  submitted a response to the
   solicitation.    Protester   asserts  that  the  agency   has  so
   substantially  changed its  requirements (in terms  of commercial
   availability  and response time requirements) as to require a new
   competition.    Protester  also  maintains  that  the  agency  is
   engaging in an unlawful sole source procurement.
 
        On October 21,  the parties filed a joint  motion to dismiss
   the  protest  without  prejudice.   Accordingly,  the  protest is
   DISMISSED  WITHOUT PREJUDICE.   The  dismissal  becomes one  with
   prejudice  on  December  1,  1992,  unless, prior  to  that  date
   protester  timely files  a  protest raising  the  issues here  in
   dispute.   Rule 28(a)(1) and (2).  The  motions of the agency and
   intervenor  requesting that the Board dismiss the protest because
   protester is not  an interested party, or because  the protest is
   untimely  or  premature  need  not be  presently  resolved.   The
   suspension of procurement authority entered on October 14, lapses
   by its very terms, 40 U.S.C.   759(f)(2) (1988).  Order (Oct. 15,
   1992).
 
 
 
 
                                        ________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge