DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: December 4, 1992
                                                  
 
 
                             GSBCA 12179-P
 
 
                          AMDAHL CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                           ViON CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        David  S.  Cohen  and  Donn  R. Milton  of  Cohen  &  White,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Ronald  Guttman  and  Dalton  Phillips,  Office  of  General
   Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
        David  R.  Hazelton and  Martin  F.  Petraitis of  Latham  &
   Watkins, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On October 30, 1992, this  Board granted a protest by Amdahl
   Corporation,  finding  that  two specifications  contained  in  a
   solicitation for proposals  to supply mainframe computers  to the
   Department  of   Health  and  Human  Services'   Social  Security
   Administration   (SSA)    are   unnecessarily    restrictive   of
   competition.  We directed SSA to amend the solicitation to permit
   competition  in a  way  sanctioned  by  statute  and  regulation.
   Amdahl  Corp. v.  Department of  Health &  Human Services,  GSBCA
   11998-P, 1992 BPD   325 (Oct. 30, 1992).  
 
        On November 19,  Amdahl filed a Motion  to Compel Compliance
   with Board's Decision  or in the Alternative,  Protest Complaint.
   In  this  filing,  protester  stated  that  SSA  had amended  the
   solicitation,  but without  modifying  one of  the specifications
   that  the Board had found  anti-competitive -- a requirement that
   all computers offered  over the entire length of  the contract be
   "field-proven" by August 28, 1992.   We docketed the filing as  a
   separate protest, GSBCA  12179-P, in light of its  challenge to a
   solicitation that  was in  different form  from  the request  for
   proposals  (RFP)  that  triggered  the  initial  protest.    ViON
   Corporation, which like  Amdahl is a  prospective offeror in  the
   subject  procurement, intervened  in  opposition  to this  second
   protest.
 
        The parties conducted limited discovery and agreed to submit
   this case  for a decision on a written record.  Rule 11.  Then on
   December 4,  they filed a  Joint Motion to Dismiss  This Protest.
   The key provisions of the joint stipulation on the basis of which
   the motion  is predicated  are as  follows.   SSA will  amend the
   solicitation  again, modifying several clauses, including the one
   which establishes the  "field-proven" requirement.   The  protest
   should  be dismissed without prejudice to its reinstatement, with
   the dismissal to  become with prejudice  within one business  day
   after issuance of the  amendment.  Each party  will bear its  own
   costs of  protest,  and once  the  amendment is  issued,  neither
   Amdahl nor ViON shall "file a protest on any provision of the RFP
   as amended by this agreement."
 
        In accordance with  the joint  motion, this  protest is  now
   DISMISSED WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.  Rule  28(a).  The  dismissal shall
   become  with prejudice  at 4:30  p.m. on  the business  day which
   follows the day  on which SSA  issues the solicitation  amendment
   agreed upon by the parties.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge