_________________________________________________________
 
 
              DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  March 3, 1993
       _________________________________________________________
        
 
                             GSBCA 12293-P
 
                  ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                     COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        Michael A.  Gordon, Donald C.  Holmes, and Jon N.  Kulish of
   Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, Rockville, MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        Colonel Riggs L.  Wilks, Jr., Major Charles  R. Marvin, Jr.,
   Major Karl M. Ellcessor, III,  Major Terry L. Elling, Major Scott
   L. Kilgore, and  Captain Sophia L. Rafatjah, Office of  the Chief
   Trial  Attorney, Department of  the Army, Arlington,  VA, counsel
   for Respondent.
 
        Helaine Grace Elderkin  and Harvey N. Bernstein  of Computer
   Sciences Corporation, Falls Church, VA, appearing for Intervenor.
 
        Kenneth  S. Kramer,  Jordan  S.  Fried,  William  A.  Davis,
   Catherine  H. Winterburn, and  Milton Eisenberg of  Fried, Frank,
   Harris,   Shriver  &  Jacobson,   Washington,  DC,   counsel  for
   intervenor, Computer Sciences Corporation. 
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) filed this protest
   with the Board on February 8, 1993, alleging that the award  of a
   contract  for  automatic  data processing  services  made  by the
   Department of the Army violated statute and regulation.
 
        On  March  2,  the  Board  received  protester's  notice  of
   withdrawal of its protest, which provided as follows:
 
                  Protester,     Electronic     Data    Systems
             Corporation  ("EDS")  respectfully   notifies  the
             Board  that  it  is  voluntarily  dismissing  this
             protest.     The  withdrawal  is  based  upon  the
             responses  to discovery, the  March 1, 1993 status
             conference, and declarations subsequently provided
             on March 1, 1993 by the Source Selection Authority
             and   the   Source  Selection   Advisory   Counsel
             Chairman.
 
        The protest  is hereby  DISMISSED WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.   Rule
   28(a).   The dismissal shall  become one with prejudice  on March
   24, 1993, unless the protest is refiled  prior to that date.  The
   suspension of  respondent's delegation  of procurement  authority
   lapses by its terms.
 
 
 
                                      _________________________
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge