______________________________________
 
                 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: May 26, 1993
                 ______________________________________
 
 
                         GSBCA 12407-P, 12429-P
 
 
                          RMTC SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                      Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 
                                      Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                      DATA STORAGE MARKETING INC.,
 
                                      Intervenor.
 
        Jeff Stollman, President of RMTC Systems, Inc., Boulder, CO,
   appearing for Protester.
 
        Clarence  D. Long, III,  and Joseph M.  Goldstein, Office of
   the  General Counsel, Department of  the Air Force, The Pentagon,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Kipp  Hayes, Sales Manager  of Data Storage  Marketing Inc.,
   Boulder, CO, appearing for Intervenor.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On April 29, 1993, RMTC  Systems Inc. filed a protest, GSBCA
   12407-P, with the Board regarding the actions  of the respondent,
   the Department of  the Air Force, in awarding  a contract to Data
   Storage Marketing Inc., an intervenor of right.  (A notice in the
   Commerce Business  Daily (CBD)  had expressed  the intent  of the
   agency  to make  such an  award.)   In particular,  the protester
   asserts that the agency had failed to provide timely notification
   of the award  to it.   Further, the protester  contends that  the
   agency  improperly  rejected its  "offer"--namely,  the protester
   maintains   that  its  offered   products  satisfy   the  minimum
   requirements  expressed in the  CBD notice, and  that it provided
   adequate information to permit the agency to select it for award.
 
        On May 13, the protester filed another protest, GSBCA 12429-
   P,  with  the Board  regarding the  same procurement.   Protester
   there  contends that the agency improperly  rejected its offer on
   the basis of information contained in a solicitation not provided
   to it.
 
        On  May  20,  the  Board  received  from   the  protester  a
   notification that it is withdrawing its protests.  Protester  has
   clarified  that it  will  not  seek to  reinstate  either of  its
   protests  at this  Board.   Given  this request  and the  lack of
   objection  from  the  parties, the  protests  are  DISMISSED WITH
   PREJUDICE to reinstatement, although the Board does not reach the
   merits of any  issue raised.  Rule  28(a).  Further, in  light of
   the  dismissals, the pending motions--to dismiss as moot (because
   goods have been  delivered and accepted), for  lack of interested
   party status,  or  for being  filed  untimely--need not  here  be
   reached.
 
 
 
                                           _________________________
                                           JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                           Board Judge