DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  April 20, 1993
                                                             
 
        
                             GSBCA 12369-P
 
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
                                                               
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
 
        Shelton  H. Skolnick of  Skolnick & Leishman,  P.C., Vienna,
   VA, counsel for Protester, and Stephen L. Mills, Vice  President,
   Marketing,  Integrated   Systems  Group,   Inc.,  appearing   for
   Protester.
 
        Craig R. Schmauder and William Richards, Office of the Chief
   Counsel,  U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers, Department  of the Army,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This protest  was filed with the Board  on April 9, 1993, by
   Integrated Systems Group, Inc. (ISG).   ISG protests the award of
   a contract for certain automatic data processing equipment by the
   United States  Army Corps of  Engineers.  R&S Computers  & Memory
   Enhancement  Products  (R&S),  a  participant  in  the  protested
   procurement, has intervened in this  protest as an intervenor  of
   right.   Unitek Technology, Inc. (Unitek), also  a participant in
   the  procurement,  has  likewise  indicated  that  it  wishes  to
   intervene in this protest.  
     
        On  Friday, April 16, counsel for  respondent filed with the
   Board copies of a signed stipulation.  According to the  terms of
   this  stipulation,  respondent,  ISG, R&S,  and  Unitek  have all
   agreed  to  the  dismissal  of  this  case  in  order  to  permit
   respondent  to  address  it  as  an  agency level  protest  under
   applicable  agency procedures.   The parties have  further agreed
   that  the protest  may  be  reinstated at  the  Board within  ten
   working  days  following  any  adverse  decision  on  the  agency
   protest,  and  that, if  not so  reinstated, this  dismissal will
   convert to a dismissal "with prejudice."
 
 
        Accordingly,  pursuant to the  agreement of the  parties and
   Rule 28(a),  this case  is  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.    The
   dismissal will be deemed to be "with prejudice" if no party moves
   for  a reinstatement  of  the  protest  within ten  working  days
   following any adverse decision on the agency protest.  
 
 
                                           ____________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge