_______________________________________________________
 
             DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  October 26, 1992
        _______________________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12114-P
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                                 Respondent.
 
        Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        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,  counsel for
   Respondent. 
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On October 13,  1992, the Board docketed a  protest filed by
   Integrated Systems  Group, Inc. (ISG).   On August 17,  1992, the
   respondent,  the  Department  of the  Army,  U.S.  Army  Corps of
   Engineers,  synopsized in  the Commerce  Business  Daily (CBD)  a
   requirement  for  automatic  data processing  equipment  for  the
   Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi.  The pro-
   tester alleged  that the  CBD procurement was  conducted under  a
   blanket  General  Services  Administration  (GSA)  Delegation  of
   Procurement  Authority.     An  award  was  made   to  Government
   Technology Services, Inc. (GTSI) under delivery order DACA239-92-
   F-1014.   The protester alleged that the  contracting officer (1)
   failed to  follow the  FIRMR by awarding  against a  GSA schedule
   contract  which was  not  the lowest  cost  alternative; and  (2)
   failed to meet  the notice  requirements of  FIRMR 201-39.803  in
   violation of applicable statute and regulation.
 
        On October 16, we held a prehearing telephone conference for
   the purpose of establishing a  plan for further proceedings.  The
   respondent stated  that  it did  not  contest suspension  of  its
   delegation  of  procurement  authority.   We  then  cancelled the
   suspension hearing  and suspended the procurement  under delivery
   order DACA39-92-F-1014.
 
 
 
        On  October  20,  we  held  a  second  prehearing  telephone
   conference.    The parties  stated  that they  were  settling the
   protest and would be requesting dismissal.
 
        On October 26,  the Board received  a joint stipulation  and
   agreement  regarding dismissal  of the  protest,  signed by  both
   parties, which states:
 
        1.   The  Corps  and Protestor  agree that  the protest
        shall be  dismissed without  prejudice.   By  agreement
        between  the  parties,  the  Corps  will  consider  the
        protest  at   the  agency  level,  in  accordance  with
        applicable regulations governing agency level protests.
 
        2.    The  Corps  and  the  Protestor  agree  that  the
        Protestor may reinstate the  instant protest within ten
        (10) working days of an adverse  agency decision on the
        agency level protest.  The Corps agrees it will suspend
        any further performance under the delivery order issued
        pursuant to the contract award which forms the basis of
        the  instant protest  pending final  resolution of  the
        protest  issues, including  resolution  by the  General
        Services Board  of Contract Appeals should  the protest
        be properly reinstated.
    
        Accordingly,  the  protest is  DISMISSED  WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
   Rule 28(a).   The  protest will  be deemed  to be  dismissed with
   prejudice  on December 30, 1992, unless reinstated with the Board
   by  either party  on  or before  that  date.   The suspension  of
   respondent's delegation  of procurement  authority lapses  by its
   own terms.
 
                                __________________________________
                                JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                Board Judge