______________________________________________________
 
              DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  October 21, 1992
         ______________________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12119-P
 
                       COUNTER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 
 
                                                 Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                            SYMBIONT, INC.,
 
                                                 Intervenor,
 
                                  and
 
                             METRICA, INC.,
 
                                                 Intervenor.
 
        Pamela J.  Mazza and Antonio  R. Franco of Piliero,  Mazza &
   Pargament, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Charles A.  Walden  and  James  E. Hicks,  Office  of  Chief
   Counsel, Drug Enforcement  Administration, Department of Justice,
   Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Horace  McClerklin of  Wiggs &  McClerklin,  Alexandria, VA,
   counsel for Intervenor Symbiont, Inc.
 
        David R.  Smith of Reed,  Smith, Shaw & McClay,  McLean, VA,
   counsel for Intervenor Metrica, Inc.
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
         On October 15, 1992, the  Board docketed a protest filed by
   Counter Technology, Inc.  (CTI).  In  its protest complaint,  CTI
   alleged  that  the   respondent,  Department  of   Justice,  Drug
   Enforcement Administration, proposed  to award a contract,  under
   solicitation  number  DEA-92-R-0038,   for  maintenance  of   the
   Narcotics  and Dangerous Drugs  Information System  (NADDIS), "to
   another  section 8(a)  firm  in  violation  of  the  solicitation
   requirements  and  the  Federal  Acquisition  Regulations."    On
   October 20, Symbiont, Inc. and Metrica, Inc. timely intervened in
   this protest.
 
         The  Board scheduled a prehearing conference for October 21
   to establish a plan for further proceedings in this protest.   On
   October 20,  the protester  informed this Board  that it  and the
   respondent were  settling the  protest.   A prehearing  telephone
   conference was then held with all the parties.
 
         On October 21, the Board received the protester's notice of
   withdrawal   of  its  protest  and  request  for  dismissal  with
   prejudice, as agreed to by all the parties.  It states in part:
 
             In accordance with our discussion today during the
        2:00  p.m.  conference  call,  this  letter  serves  as
        Counter Technology,  Inc.'s  ("CTI")  notice  that  the
        parties  have  settled  their  dispute  in  the  above-
        captioned Protest  and have  entered into a  Settlement
        Agreement.    Accordingly,  CTI  hereby  withdraws  its
        Protest with Prejudice.
 
        Accordingly,  the protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Rule
   28(a).
   _____________________________________
 
                                JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                Board Judge