DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: January 12, 1993
                                                           
 
 
                             GSBCA 12195-P
 
 
                      COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  APPLIED TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Marcia G.  Madsen, Brian  W. Craver, and  Don W.  Blevins of
   Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Pamela  Reiner, Seth Binstock,  and Kurt Summers,  Office of
   the General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Pamela J. Mazza, Andrew P. Hallowell, and Brian N. Garcia of
   Piliero,  Mazza   &  Pargament,   Washington,  DC,   counsel  for
   Intervenor.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On November  30, 1992,  Computer Data  Systems, Inc.  (CDSI)
   protested  the  award  of a  contract  under  solicitation number
   9KCS-91-0001  to  Applied  Technology  Associates (ATA)  for  the
   automated data processing facilities  management support services
   requirements  of the Information  Resources Management Service of
   the  General  Services  Administration (GSA)  Pacific  Zone.   On
   January 11, 1993,  CDSI and GSA filed  a joint motion to  dismiss
   the protest without prejudice, stating in part:
 
        GSA  and  CDSI   stipulate  to  the  following.     The
        evaluation conducted by GSA took into account technical
        subfactors  that were not clearly identified as part of
        the  evaluation   criteria.    GSA   and  CDSI  further
        stipulate that  the above fact constitutes  a violation
        of the requirements  of the Competition  in Contracting
        Act  of 1984, and in particular 41 U.S.C.    253(a) and
        253a(b), and applicable regulations.  GSA and CDSI also
        stipulate that GSA  has terminated the contract  of ATA
        under  this  solicitation  and   GSA  will  revise  the
        solicitation   to   accurately  reflect   its   minimum
        requirements.     All   offerors   in  the   originally
        determined   competitive  range   will  be   given  the
        opportunity to submit revised proposals.   Finally, GSA
        and  CDSI stipulate  that CDSI  has succeeded  as to  a
        significant  issue and should  be deemed the prevailing
        party  and awarded the  reasonable costs of  filing and
        pursuing this protest.
 
        In their joint motion to dismiss, the parties requested that
   the Board, in the dismissal order, authorize the reopening of the
   evidentiary  record in  the cost  case if  necessary.   The Board
   grants  the  parties' joint  request  that they  be  permitted to
   develop a  full evidentiary record  in conjunction with  the cost
   case if necessary.  
        This protest  is DISMISSED  WITHOUT PREJUDICE.   Rule 28(a).
   This dismissal shall convert to  one with prejudice ten days from
   the date of this order unless either party requests reinstatement
   prior to that  date.  Protester may  file a cost  petition within
   thirty days of the date of this order in accordance with Rule 35.
   The   suspension  of   respondent's  delegation   of  procurement
   authority lapses by its terms.
 
 
 
                                      ____________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge