NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF
             OPINION UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER:  July 7, 1993
                                                            
 
                             GSBCA 12370-P 
 
 
                    UNIVERSAL AUTOMATION LABS, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                     DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 
 
                                                Respondent, 
 
                                  and
 
            DIVERSIFIED INTERNATIONAL SCIENCES CORPORATION,
 
                                                Intervenor,
 
                                  and
 
                    GALAXY SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, 
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
 
        Michael R.  Lemov, Michael L.  Sibarium, Mark J.  Hedien and
   Robert A. Berger  of Winston & Strawn, Washington,  DC; and James
   H. Roberts,  III of Manatt,  Phelps &  Phillips, Washington,  DC,
   counsel for Protester.
 
        John R. McCaw,  Jr. and Sybil Horowitz, Office  of the Chief
   Counsel,  Federal Aviation  Administration,  Washington, DC;  and
   Thomas E.  Flatley,  Jr.,  Patricia  A.  McNall  and  William  R.
   Sheehan,  Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
   Administration,   Atlantic   City   Airport,  NJ,   counsel   for
   Respondent. 
 
        Arthur  I. Leaderman  and Carl  T.  Hahn of  Smith, Pachter,
   McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, Vienna, VA, counsel for Intervenor.
 
        Robert G.  Fryling and John  W. Fowler, Jr. of  Saul, Ewing,
   Remick & Saul, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Intervenor.
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
 
                                 NOTICE
 
        On this date,  the Board issued its opinion  and decision on
   the protest filed  by Universal Automation Labs, Inc. (UAL).   It
   concerns an  on-going procurement  of concepts analysis  division
   support  service, issued by  the Federal Aviation Administration.
   The protest has been denied.  
 
        The Board's  decision contains information which  is clearly
   procurement  sensitive  and  possibly also  contains  information
   which is deemed  by the parties to be  proprietary.  Accordingly,
   the  decision  has been  issued  subject  in  its entirety  to  a
   protective  order.   The parties  have been  asked to  inform the
   Board of  any redactions  they consider  appropriate within  five
   working  days from  the date  of the  release of the  decision to
   them.  Following a review of their proposed redactions, the Board
   will decide what  portions of the decision should  be released to
   the general public.  
 
                                           _________________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge