_________________________________________________
 
              DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  April 8, 1993
           _________________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12336-P
 
 
                          RMTC SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                 Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
 
                                                 Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                        UNITEK TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
 
                                                 Intervenor.
 
        Jeff Stollman,  President, RMTC Systems, Inc.,  Boulder, CO,
   appearing for Protester.
 
        Jerry  A.  Walz,  Office of  Assistant  General  Counsel for
   Finance & Litigation, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, and
   Niel B. Moeller, Office of the  General Counsel, National Oceanic
   and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce,  Seattle,
   WA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Eugene  D.   Rossel,  Vice   President,  Marketing,   Unitek
   Technology, Inc., Ontario, CA, appearing for Intervenor.
 
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On March  17, 1993,  the Board docketed  a protest  filed by
   RMTC Systems,  Inc.  (RMTC).   In  its  protest  complaint,  RMTC
   alleged that the respondent, the Department of Commerce, National
   Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration,  Seattle,  Washington,
   awarded contract number  50ABNF300040, under solicitation  number
   52ABNF200087, for  computer software  to Unitek  Technology, Inc.
   (Unitek).  The  protester contended that Unitek  offered a higher
   price than the protester.   On March 23, Unitek timely intervened
   in this protest.
 
 
        The Board held a prehearing telephone conference on March 18
   to  establish a plan for further proceedings in this protest.  On
   March  23, the  respondent informed  us that  it did  not contest
   suspension.   We then  suspended the  respondent's delegation  of
   procurement authority pending our  decision on the merits of  the
   protest.  
 
        On  April 1,  the  protester moved  to  dismiss its  protest
   without prejudice.   With  its motion, the  protester enclosed  a
   copy of  the  respondent's  offer of  settlement,  in  which  the
   respondent agreed to  reopen negotiations with the  protester and
   all other offerors in the  competitive range.  The respondent has
   orally  informed  the Board  that  it  has  no objection  to  the
   dismissal of the protest  without prejudice.  The intervenor  did
   not join in the protester's motion to dismiss.
 
        Accordingly,  the protest  is  DISMISSED WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.
   Rule 28(a).   The dismissal shall be deemed  to be with prejudice
   within ten calendar  days after the commencement  of negotiations
   unless  the protester  moves to  reinstate the  protest with  the
   Board on or before that date.  The suspension of the respondent's
   delegation of procurement authority lapses by its own terms. 
   _____________________________________
 
                                 JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                 Board Judge