____________________________________________________
 
             DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  January 21, 1993
          ____________________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12248-P
 
                              LOGICON RDA,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                           TITAN CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
 
        Michael A.  Gordon, Donald C.  Holmes, and Jon N.  Kulish of
   Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, Rockville, MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        COL Riggs  L. Wilks,  Jr., MAJ Charles  R. Marvin,  Jr., MAJ
   Karl M. Ellcessor,  III, and CAPT Sophia Rafatjah,  Office of the
   Chief  Trial Attorney,  Department of  the  Army, Arlington,  VA,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
        Lane  L.  McVey and  Grant  L.  Clark  of McKenna  &  Cuneo,
   San Diego, CA, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
       On January 7, 1993, Logicon/RDA filed a protest at this Board
   contesting  respondent's   contract  award  for   automatic  data
   processing services to Titan  Corporation.  The services  are for
   the operation of  simulation facilities and support  of computer-
   driven, high-level training exercises.  Respondent filed a motion
   to dismiss arguing that the procurement was subject to the Warner
   Amendment,  10  U.S.C.    2315  (a)(3),  (5)  (1988),  40  U.S.C.
     759(a)(3)(c)(iii) and  (v) (1988),  as those  services "involve
   the command and control of  military forces" and are "critical to
   the direct fulfillment of  military . . . missions." 
       At respondent's request, on January 15, we convened a special
   jurisdictional  hearing  which lasted  about  one day.    We took
   testimony  from five witnesses:   respondent's two  witnesses who
   testified at  length and  three witnesses,  called by  protester,
   whose  testimony was briefer.   Intervenor did not participate at
   the hearing.   On  January 19, protester  filed an  opposition to
   respondent's  motion to dismiss.   On that  same day, protester's
   counsel advised the  Board by telephone  that it was  withdrawing
   its protest  to this  Board in  order to  file a  protest at  the
   General Accounting  Office.   We understand  that respondent  and
   intervenor have no objection to the withdrawal.  
 
       Pursuant to Rule  28(a)(1) this protest is  DISMISSED WITHOUT
   PREJUDICE,  to be automatically  converted into a  dismissal with
   prejudice at this  Board unless refiled within  ten calendar days
   from the date of this order.  
 
 
 
 
                                ________________________________
                                ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                Board Judge