_______________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: January 15, 1993 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 12237-P ViON CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent, and L.A. SYSTEMS, and AMDAHL CORPORATION, Intervenors. Irwin Goldbloom, Penelope A. Kilburn, and Jonathan S. Miller of Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Janis A. Sposato, Francis Martin, and Rafael Madan, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. J.C. Lewis, President of L.A. Systems, Alexandria, VA, appearing for Intervenor L.A. Systems. David S. Cohen and Donn R. Milton of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Amdahl Corporation. HENDLEY, Board Judge. ORDER On December 24, 1992, the Board docketed a protest filed by ViON Corporation (ViON). ViON protested the terms of solicitation number JVJMD-92-R-0001 issued by the respondent, the Department of Justice, alleging that the solicitation imposed "a requirement for 'proven equipment' that is unreasonable and unnecessarily restricts competition." ViON filed an amended protest complaint on January 8, 1993. The respondent's delegation of procurement authority was suspended on January 4, 1993. L.A. Systems and Amdahl Corporation intervened in this protest. Amerits hearing wasscheduled tobegin on February3, 1993. On January 13, 1993, the Board received a joint motion to dismiss from the protester and the respondent, which states: On December 24, 1992, ViON Corporation protested a solicitation by the Department of Justice seeking main frame computers for its Data Centers in Rockville, Maryland and Dallas, Texas. The solicitation contained a requirement that the equipment be field proven, i.e., that identical equipment be installed successfully for 30 days prior to submission of best and final offers. (See, RFP L.23.2.1) ViON contended that the Department needs would be met by a lesser requirement, i.e., that proposed equipment be installed successfully for 30 days prior to delivery.[foot #] 1 ViON asserted that such a provision would be consistent with a provision that required that equipment to be delivered under later option must be field proven for 30 days prior to delivery. (See, RFP C.2.2.2) The Department of Justice wishes to avoid any further delay in this procurement. In order to settle ViON's protest and proceed with the procurement the Department of Justice will amend the RFP by deleting the field proven requirement for initial deliveries. (RFP L.23.2.1). The Department of Justice believes that only a limited number of original equipment manufacturers can supply the equipment being sought and that the equipment presently available from these manufacturers is of sufficient known reliability to permit the Department to forego the field proven requirement under these circumstances. . . . In light of the discussions and representations by the Department of Justice concerning the basis for the field proven requirement, ViON sees no basis to continue its protest and agrees to withdraw it with prejudice. ViON does not seek to recover any protest costs or attorneys fees. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The request for relief in the ViON protest contained an apparent misstatement in paragraph 5. ViON has since amended the request for relief to be consistent with the underlying protest, i.e., ViON requests that the field proven provision for initial deliveries be made the same as the field proven provision for later optional deliveries. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- For the foregoing reasons, ViON Corporation and the Department of Justice jointly request dismissal of the protest with prejudice. The RFP amendment will be issued when the procurement is no longer subject to suspension. Accordingly, the protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). The suspension of the respondent's delegation of procurement authority lapses by its own terms. _________________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge