DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  March 31, 1993 
                                                        
 
        
                             GSBCA 12331-P 
 
 
                   OCTEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                         AT&T FEDERAL SYSTEMS,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        James  J. Regan,  Thomas P.  Humphrey,  Robert M.  Halperin,
   Cameron  S. Hamrick,  and Kelly  J. Harris  of Crowell  & Moring,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Donald   M.  Suica,  Mark  A.  Allen,  Francis  C.  Inserra,
   Corlyss M. Drinkard,  Lori  R. Larson,  and  Nathan J.  Colodney,
   Office of Chief  Counsel, Internal  Revenue Service,  Washington,
   DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        James J. McCullough,  Deneen J. Melander, William  A. Davis,
   and Catherine  H. Winterburn of  Fried, Frank, Harris,  Shriver &
   Jacobson,  Washington, DC; and Jonathan S. Hoak, Eloisa Regalado,
   and  Pamela H. Goldstein of  AT&T Federal Systems, Silver Spring,
   MD, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This protest was  filed by Octel  Communications Corporation
   (Octel) on March  15, 1993.  Octel  is protesting the award  of a
   contract  for the  procurement of  a  voice mail  system for  all
   Department  of the  Treasury  offices.   Octel  alleges that  the
   Internal Revenue Service accepted a noncompliant proposal, failed
   to conduct a proper cost or price evaluation, failed to conduct a
   proper technical  evaluation, conducted an improper  "best value"
   analysis,  and  failed   to  amend  the  solicitation   when  its
   requirements changed.
 
 
        On March  29, 1993,  Octel moved this  Board to  dismiss its
   protest  with prejudice and stated that respondent and intervenor
   have no objection to the dismissal.  Accordingly, this protest is
   DISMISSED  WITH PREJUDICE.   Rule  28(a).   The Board's  order of
   March 17, 1993, suspending respondent's delegation of procurement
   authority lapses by its own terms.
 
                                      ___________________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge