_______________________________________________ DISSMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: March 4, 1993 ______________________________________________ GSBCA 12286-P, 12290-P BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., and NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Protesters, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent, and CONTRACT SERVICES, and MITEL, INC., and DIGITAL VOICE CORPORATION, and WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC., Intervenors. James J. Regan, Robert M. Halperin, Kathryn D. Kirmayer, and Peter J. Lipperman of Crowell and Moring, Washington, DC, counsel for Protesters. Ellen D. Washington, Office of the General Counsel, Information Technology Acquisition Center, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. William Barton, Jr., John R. Tolle, and William T. Welch of Barton, Mountain & Tolle, McLean, VA, counsel for Intervenors Contract Services and Mitel, Inc. Victor G. Klingelhofer of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Digital Voice Corporation. David W. Burgett and Thomas L. McGovern III of Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor WilTel Communications Systems, Inc. HENDLEY, Board Judge. ORDER On February 4 and February 5, 1993, the Board docketed protests filed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth), under solicitation number N66032-92-R-0005, and New York Telephone Company (New York Telephone), under solicitaiton number N66032-92-R-0004, respectively. Both protested the terms of the solicitations which were issued by respondent, the Department of the Navy, calling for the purchase of switching systems for Naval Stations in Mobile, Alabama; Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Staten Island, New York. The protesters contended that the solicitations were unduly restrictive by requiring a PBX system to the exclusion of a Centrex system. On February 9, 1993, we held a prehearing conference for the purpose of establishing a plan for further proceedings in these protests. In their protest complaints, the protesters sought to have the respondent's delegation of procurement authority suspended pending the Board's decision on the merits of the case. During the prehearing conference, respondent elected not to contest the suspension, and we suspended the procurements at that time. The parties proceeded with discovery. A merits hearing was scheduled for March 15, 1993. On March 2, 1993, the Board received a joint motion to dismiss both protests with prejudice, signed by each protester and respondent. The joint motion sets out a list of admissions and representations which the protesters seek to have included in our dismissal order. We decline to do so because to do so adds nothing to their agreement, which stands on its own. The intervenors are not parties to the joint motions or the protesters' and the respondent's settlement of the protests. Accordingly, the joint motion to dismiss is granted. The protests are 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