DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: June 4, 1993
                                                        
 
 
                             GSBCA 12410-P
 
 
                     FEDERAL COMPUTER CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                  and
 
                             CORDANT, INC.
 
                                  and
 
                        INTERGRAPH CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenors,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Gerard  F. Doyle  and  Scott  A. Ford  of  Doyle &  Bachman,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        William A. Roberts,  III, and Lee Curtis of  Howrey & Simon,
   Washington,  DC, and Stephannie  A. Wood, Cordant,  Inc., Reston,
   VA, counsel for Intervenor Cordant, Inc.
 
        Rand L. Allen and Philip J. Davis of Wiley, Rein & Fielding,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Intergraph Corporation.
 
        Ellen  D. Washington  and Thomas  L. Frankfurt,  Information
   Technology   Acquisition   Center,   Department  of   the   Navy,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
                                 ORDER
 
        After the Board  invalidated the award of a  contract by the
   Department  of the Navy  for computer-aided design  and computer-
   aided  engineering (CAD/CAE)  hardware,  software, and  services,
   Centel Federal Systems,  Inc. v.  Department of  the Navy,  GSBCA
   12011-P,  et al.,  1992  BPD   359  (Nov. 16,  1992), the  agency
   amended  the solicitation and permitted further competition for a
   second award.  One of the original complainants, Federal Computer
   Corporation (FCC), protested that the  new version of the request
   for  proposals precluded  true competition.    Among the  reasons
   given by  FCC for  its conclusion was  that the  agency announced
   that  it would  evaluate the  productivity  associated with  each
   proposed computer system, and use these evaluations in performing
   a trade-off between  cost and technical  merit of the  proposals,
   but   planned  to  measure  productivity  in  an  irrational  and
   arbitrary  way.    The  other  two  firms  participating  in  the
   procurement,  Cordant,  Inc.  (formerly  Centel Federal  Systems,
   Inc.) and Intergraph Corporation, intervened in the protest; each
   firm supported some of the  allegations and reserved judgment  on
   others.
 
 
        On June  3, following  lengthy settlement  negotiations, the
   parties filed  a Joint Stipulation  and Motion to Dismiss.   This
   document includes the following paragraphs:
 
                  2.   The Navy has  found the allegations
             in Counts I and II  of the protest [which are
             referenced  above] to  be  meritorious.   The
             Navy will further  amend the Solicitation  to
             address  the issues raised by Counts I and II
             of the protest.
 
                  3.   Notwithstanding           continued
             disagreement among the Navy, FCC, Cordant and
             Intergraph regarding other allegations in the
             protest,  the parties  desire  to settle  the
             protest so as to avoid further delays in this
             procurement.    Accordingly, the  Navy,  FCC,
             Cordant  and   Intergraph  agree   that  this
             protest  shall be  dismissed with  prejudice;
             provided, however,  that this  dismissal does
             not  affect  the  right  of  FCC,  Cordant or
             Intergraph   to   protest    any   subsequent
             amendment to the Solicitation.
 
                  4.   Notwithstanding the  dismissal with
             prejudice of this protest,  the parties agree
             to  continue  settlement  discussions  in  an
             effort to resolve  outstanding issues related
             to  the  procurement.    To  facilitate  such
             discussions,  the  parties request  that  the
             Board   postpone   issuance  of   its   Order
             dismissing the protest until June 15, 1993.
 
        We have  confirmed  by telephone  that the  parties are  all
   amenable to the  following order:  This protest  is now DISMISSED
   WITHOUT PREJUDICE  to its  reinstatement by  motion  filed on  or
   before June 14, 1993.  If no such motion is filed,  the dismissal
   will convert to one with prejudice on June 15.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge