MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION GRANTED:  April 21, 1993
                                                             
 
 
                        GSBCA 12176-C-R(12075-P)
 
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        Denise M. O'Brien, Office of the General Counsel, Department
   of Energy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges LaBELLA, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
        On April  13, 1993,  respondent, the  Department of  Energy,
   filed a motion for clarification  of the Board's opinion of April
   1, 1993, granting in part the protester's motion  for an award of
   protest costs.  The respondent  seeks to clarify how that opinion
   characterized an order dismissing the underlying protest.  In its
   motion, the agency represents that  it complied with the order of
   October  23.   It  "requests  that  the  Board clarify  that  the
   October 23, 1992, Order governs."
 
        In  the order  of  dismissal,  "[t]he  hearing  judge  found
   partial merit to the protest,  thus requiring the agency to amend
   the solicitation to state its  requirements clearly (i.e., if the
   agency requires  IBM PC DOS, it  should explicitly say so)  or to
   proceed otherwise  in accordance  with  statute and  regulation."
   Integrated  Systems  Group,   Inc.  v.   Department  of   Energy,
   GSBCA 12075-P, slip op. at 6 (Oct. 23,  1992).  In the opinion on
   costs, the  Board stated  "that the  agency has  taken corrective
   action in  direct  response to  the protest,  namely, the  agency
   agreed to amend  the solicitation to state its  actual needs, and
   to   proceed  in   accordance  with   statute  and   regulation."
   Integrated Systems  Group, Inc.  v. Department  of Energy,  GSBCA
   12176-C(12075-P), slip op. at 6 (Apr. 1, 1993).
 
 
        Respondent's motion is  GRANTED.  The last full  sentence of
   the second paragraph on page 2 of the Board's opinion of April 1,
   1993, is amended to read as follows:
 
        The  record  reveals  both that  the  agency improperly
        deemed protester's  bid  to be  nonresponsive  (as  the
        agency implicitly  admits through the  determination of
        the presiding  judge), and  that the  agency has  taken
        corrective action  in direct  response to  the protest,
        namely,  the agency   agreed to amend  the solicitation
        to   state  its  actual   needs,  or  to   proceed
             otherwise  in  accordance  with  statute  and
             regulation.
 
                                      __________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ____________________________       ____________________________
   VINCENT A. LaBELLA                 JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge                        Board Judge