_____________________________________________________
 
            DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  December 31, 1992
         _____________________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12235-P
 
                       MCA RESEARCH CORPORATION,
 
                                                      Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
 
                                                      Respondent,
                                  and
    
                             METRICA, INC.,
 
                                                      Intervenor.
 
        R.  Woods  Miles,  President  of MCA  Research  Corporation,
   Arlington, VA, appearing for Protester.
 
        Charles  A.  Walden and  James  E.  Hicks,  Office of  Chief
   Counsel, Drug Enforcement Administration,  Department of Justice,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        David R.  Smith, of  Reed Smith Shaw  & McClay,  McLean, VA,
   counsel for Intervenor.
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On December 23, 1992, the  Board docketed a protest filed by
   MCA  Research Corporation (MCA).   In its  protest complaint, MCA
   alleged  that the respondent, the Department of Justice, proposed
   to award a  contract under solicitation number  DEA-92-R-0038 for
   automatic  data  processing  services to  another  offeror.   The
   protester contended that  the awardee was  not a small  business.
   On   December  29,  1992,  Metrica,  Inc.,  the  awardee,  timely
   intervened in this protest.
 
        On  December 29,  1992,  the respondent  filed  a motion  to
   dismiss on the basis that the  protest was untimely and that this
   Board lacked  jurisdiction over the issue here  involved, to wit,
   whether  the awardee  qualified  as  a  small  business  for  the
   purposes  of the  procurement.  On  December 30, 1992,  we held a
   prehearing conference with  the parties.   During  the course  of
   that conference, the 
   protester suggested  that  its  best  course  of  action  was  to
   withdraw its protest.  On  December 31, 1992, the protester filed
   its motion to dismiss the protest without prejudice. 
 
 
        Accordingly,  the  protest is  DISMISSED  WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
   Rule 28(a).   The dismissal will be  deemed to be with  prejudice
   unless the protester moves to reinstate the protest within thirty
   days of the date of this order.
   _____________________________________
 
                                 JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                 Board Judge