____________________________________ DISMISSED AS MOOT: December 10, 1992 ____________________________________ GSBCA 12111-P INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, and ATLANTIC MICROSYSTEMS, INC., Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester. Alex D. Tomaszczuk and Devon E. Hewitt, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. Clarence D. Long, III, Joseph M. Goldstein, Office of General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, and Captain C. Wesley Bridges, II, Maxwell AFB, AL, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, Acting Chief Judge, HENDLEY, and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On October 13, 1992, Integrated Systems Group, Inc. filed this post-award protest contesting actions of the respondent, the Department of the Air Force. Atlantic Microsystems, Inc. intervened as of right in this protest, and filed its own protest concerning the same procurement, GSBCA 12099-P. A notice in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) expressed the agency's intent to purchase various items from a Government Technology Services, Inc. (GTSI) non-mandatory schedule contract with the General Services Administration. Protester responded to the notice with a letter requesting additional clarifying information because, it asserts, various items were not on the GTSI schedule contract. The agency placed an order and made an award to GTSI for the items described in the CBD notice (with the exception of a software license which it obtained from another company). Protester contends that agency actions surrounding and including the placement of an order with GTSI were violative of regulations, 41 CFR 201-39.803 (1992). In particular, it contends that the agency improperly expressed its requirements in the CBD notice, awarded items not on that schedule, and failed to include protester within the open market procurement of non- schedule items. Intervenor supports protester in all counts of the protest. Contending that protester's response to the CBD notice was neither timely submitted nor responsive, the agency filed a motion to dismiss the protest for lack of jurisdiction because protester is not an interested party. The agency maintains that protester simply requested clarifying information and an extension of the "bid close date," but did not mention items, prices, estimated delivery dates, or other information indicating a bona fide ability to meet the specified requirement. Agency Motion at 3. Protester replies: its response to the CBD notice was timely submitted; the alleged defects in the notice precluded the requisite competition so as to make the award improper. On December 1, 1992, the parties submitted to the Board a joint stipulation of settlement and a motion to dismiss with prejudice the protest of Atlantic Microsystems, Inc. Although, in the stipulation, the agency admits to violations, those violations are not the focus of this protest. However, in that stipulation, all parties to this protest agreed that the agency shall both terminate for convenience the awarded "contract" and reassess its requirements. The Board dismissed with prejudice that protest. Atlantic Microsystems, Inc., GSBCA 12099-P (Dec. 10, 1992). The parties to this protest agreed to submit the matter on the record. Given the commitment by the agency to terminate the orders underlying this protest and to reassess its requirements, the present protest and agency motion are moot. The agency admissions in the joint stipulation reach issues independent from those before the Board in this protest. The actions protested here have been superceded by events--the agency will reassess its requirements, and proceed, presumably, in accordance with statute and regulation, in its future actions. Decision The Board reaches neither the merits of the issues of protest nor the substance of the agency motion to dismiss, as each are DISMISSED AS MOOT. The previously entered suspension of procurement authority lapses by its terms. Order (Oct. 20, 1992). ________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA JAMES W. HENDLEY Acting Chief Board Judge Board Judge