_____________________________________________________
 
             DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  December 8, 1992
         _____________________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12149-P
 
                  DISTRIBUTED PLANNING SYSTEMS CORP.,
 
                                                      Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 
                                                      Respondent,
                                  and
    
                 SHESHUNOFF INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                                      Intervenor.
 
        Richard A. Lebby, Encino, CA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Jerome M. Drummond,  General Law Division, Office  of Thrift
   Supervision, Department of the  Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel
   for Respondent.
 
        Kenneth  B. Weckstein,  of Epstein,  Becker  & Green,  P.C.,
   Washington, DC counsel for Intervenor.
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On October 27,  1992, the Board docketed a  protest filed by
   Distributed  Planning Systems  Corp.  (DPSC).    In  its  protest
   complaint,  DPSC alleged that  the respondent, the  Department of
   the Treasury,  Office of Thrift Supervision, proposed  to award a
   contract under  solicitation number  RFPTOT 92-0025  for computer
   software to  another offeror.   The protester contended  that the
   awardee offered  a higher price  than the protester.   On October
   29, the  awardee, Sheshunoff  Information  Services, Inc.  timely
   intervened in this protest.
 
        The  Board held  a prehearing  conference on  October 29  to
   establish a  plan for  further proceedings in  this protest.   On
   November  6,  after  a  hearing  on  the  issue,  we  denied  the
   protester's   request  that   the   respondent's  delegation   of
   procurement  authority be suspended  pending our decision  on the
   merits of the protest.  On November  20, we denied motions by the
   intervenor and the respondent to dismiss the protest.  
 
 
        On November 25, during  the prehearing conference concerning
   a joint  motion to suspend  the protest, the parties  agreed that
   the better course was to dismiss the protest without prejudice to
   its reinstatement  within ten days of the  protester's receipt of
   the respondent's findings.  Those  findings are to be reported to
   the protester on or before December 18, 1992.
 
        Accordingly,  the protest  is  DISMISSED WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.
   Rule 28(a).  The  dismissal will be deemed  to be with  prejudice
   unless  the protester  moves to  reinstate the  protest  prior to
   January 4, 1993.
   _____________________________________
 
                                 JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                 Board Judge