DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: November 10, 1992
                                                  
 
 
                             GSBCA 12143-P
 
 
                           CTA INCORPORATED,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
            SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        William J.  Kolasky, Jr., Peter  A. von Mehren, and  Rene L.
   Todd of Wilmer,  Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC,  counsel for
   Protester. 
 
        Barbara  Amster and  Mary Brown,  Office  of Counsel,  Naval
   Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, San Diego, CA, and
   Douglas  P. Larsen,  Office  of  Counsel,  Naval  Supply  Systems
   Command, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Joel  R. Feidelman,  James  J.  McCullough,  and  Deneen  J.
   Melander of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        CTA Incorporated  protested on  October 23,  1992, that  the
   Naval  Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, a component
   of  the Department  of the  Navy, had  improperly found  the firm
   ineligible  for award  of a  contract for  the supply  of various
   software engineering services.  CTA contended that the agency had
   failed to follow procedures specified in the solicitation, failed
   to  apply criteria  prescribed  in  that  document,  and  reached
   erroneous conclusions  about the matters  it had considered.   As
   explained in the protest, after finding CTA ineligible for award,
   the  agency   awarded   a  contract   to   Science   Applications
   International  Corporation  (SAIC).     SAIC  intervened  in  the
   protest.
 
 
        On November  9, the  parties filed  a Joint  Stipulation and
   Motion for Dismissal.  In  this document, the parties recite that
   SAIC and  CTA have signed  a letter  of intent stating  that SAIC
   intends to enter into a  subcontract with CTA for the performance
   of work under the subject contract; the Navy has  no objection to
   this  arrangement; and in  consideration, CTA agrees  to withdraw
   its   protest  with  prejudice  as  soon   as  a  binding  letter
   subcontract has been entered into.
 
        In accordance with the terms agreed upon by the parties, the
   Board  now  DISMISSES  this  protest  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.    This
   dismissal shall be converted into a dismissal with prejudice upon
   the earlier  of (a)  4:30 p.m. Eastern  Standard Time  on Monday,
   November 16,  1992, or  (b) the  time of  execution of  a binding
   letter subcontract between SAIC and CTA.  Rule 28(a).
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge