DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: December 18, 1992 GSBCA 12219-P WILCO ELECTRIC, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. W. S. Guttenberg, President of Wilco Electric, Inc., Hackensack, NJ, appearing for Protester. Craig E. Hodge, Vera Meza, and Jeffrey Kessler, U.S. Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, VA, and Captain David Freeman, JAGC, U.S. Army Armament, Munitions & Chemical Command, Rock Island, IL, counsel for Respondent. DANIELS, Board Judge. ORDER On December 11, 1992, Wilco Electric, Inc. filed a protest at this Board challenging a contracting officer's determination that protester's bid was nonresponsive because it did not include a signed certificate of procurement integrity. The procurement in question is for electric motors. In docketing the case, the Board noted the subject of the procurement and ordered protester to show cause why, since our protest jurisdiction is limited to acquisitions of automatic data processing equipment, this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 40 U.S.C. 759(a)(2), (f)(1) (1988). Respondent, the Department of the Army, separately filed a motion to dismiss the case for the same reason. In a telephonic prehearing conference on December 17, protester's president stated that he had filed the protest at this Board after reading the solicitation clause at 48 CFR 52.233-2 (1991), which appeared to him to say that the case could be heard by us. We have commented several times -- most recently in Lapteff Associates v. U.S. Marine Corps, GSBCA 12105-P, 1992 BPD 376 (Oct. 23, 1992) -- on the confusing nature of this clause. We continue to urge the regulation writers to revise the paragraph. In response to the Board's order and respondent's motion to dismiss, protester withdrew the protest. In accordance with protester's request, the protest is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge