______________________________________________
 
                      DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR
                FAILURE TO PROSECUTE:  December 31, 1992
            _______________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12207-P
 
                      CHALLENGER ENGINEERING, INC.
                         A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                  DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                  and
 
                              I-NET, INC.
 
                                           Intervenors.
 
        David  G. Sweigert, Vice  President of Contracts, Challenger
   Engineering,  Inc., A  Florida Corporation,  St. Petersburg,  FL,
   appearing for Protester.
 
        Douglas  G. White and  H. Jack Shearer,  Defense Information
   Systems Agency,  Defense Commercial Communications  Office, Scott
   AFB, IL, counsel for Respondent.
 
        John  R. McCaw,  Jr.  and  Lorna L.  John,  Office of  Chief
   Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, counsel
   for Respondent.
 
        Phillip  L.  Radoff of  GTE Government  Systems Corporation,
   Chantilly, VA,  appearing for  Intervenor GTE Government  Systems
   Corporation.
 
        James   C.  Hughes,  J.  Andrew  Jackson,  and  C.  Patteson
   Cardwell IV of Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, Vienna, VA,  and David
   W.  Wells, Vice  President and  General  Counsel of  I-Net, Inc.,
   Bethesda, MD, counsel for Intervenor I-Net, Inc.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, DEVINE, and HENDLEY.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
        Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the above captioned
   protest  for lack  of  prosecution.   For  the reasons  discussed
   below, the Board grants the motion.
 
        Protester, Challenger Engineering, Inc., filed this  protest
   on  December 4, 1992.   Challenger  alleged that  respondent, the
   Defense  Information Systems  Agency, failed  to  include in  its
   solicitation  for a communications network a requirement that the
   system  comply  with   government  open  systems  interconnection
   profile (GOSIP)  requirements.    Two  offerors,  GTE  Government
   Systems Corporation and I-Net, Inc., have intervened on  the side
   of respondent.
 
        The  Board   initially  scheduled  a   prehearing  telephone
   conference for December 10.  On that date, the Board's efforts to
   contact  protester  were  unsuccessful  and  the  conference  was
   rescheduled  for  December  11.   Notice  of  the  conference was
   provided   by  telephone  (a  message  was  left  on  protester's
   answering  machine) and by  facsimile transmission.   On December
   11,  the Board  was again  unable  to contact  protester and  the
   conference was held in protester's absence.
 
        Pursuant to the Board's Prehearing Order of December 11, the
   parties were to respond to written discovery requests by December
   24.    Protester  neither  responded  to  respondent's  discovery
   requests nor contacted the Board to request an extension.
 
        On the morning  of December 30, the Board  sent by facsimile
   transmission a notice that a conference would be convened at 2:00
   p.m. to  discuss respondent's  motion to dismiss  for failure  to
   prosecute.  Protester  was ordered to show cause  why its protest
   should not be dismissed.  Again, the  Board was unable to contact
   protester at the appointed time.   Neither intervenor objects  to
   respondent's motion.
 
                               Discussion
 
        By  filing a  protest,  a  vendor puts  into  motion a  time
   consuming and  expensive process  for all  involved.   Protesters
   have  a  responsibility  to  comply  with  Board  orders  and  to
   prosecute  diligently the  protest  so that  it  can be  resolved
   without   undue  delay  or   prejudice  to  the   other  parties.
   Protester's actions  here manifest  an utter  disregard for  that
   responsibility.
 
                                Decision
 
        The  protest  is  DISMISSED WITH  PREJUDICE  for  failure to
   prosecute.
 
                                      ________________________
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   _____________________              _______________________
   DONALD W. DEVINE                   JAMES W. HENDLEY
   Board Judge                        Board Judge