DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: June 23, 1993
                                                       
 
 
                             GSBCA 12431-P 
 
 
                   OPTIMUM SERVICES & SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                     DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Anne  N.  Moon,  Marketing Director  of  Optimum  Services &
   Systems, Inc., Lanham, MD, appearing for Protester.
 
        Commander Bernard J. Roan,  Office of the Chief Counsel,  U.
   S.  Coast  Guard, Department  of Transportation,  Washington, DC,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        In  a protest  filed on  May  14, 1993,  Optimum Services  &
   Systems, Inc., alleges that the United States Coast Guard, a unit
   of   the   Department  of   Transportation,  has   structured  an
   acquisition  of  computer  maintenance services  in  a  way which
   violates  the   Competition   in  Contracting   Act  because   it
   unnecessarily  restricts  competition.   Specifically,  protester
   maintains that the agency's bundling of requirements for hardware
   and software maintenance  at a facility in  Chesapeake, Virginia,
   precludes any firm  other than the  manufacturer of the  software
   from competing for a contract.
 
        The Coast Guard has published in the Commerce Business Daily
   a notice  of intention to fill  the agency's needs  by placing an
   order  against  the   software  manufacturer's  General  Services
   Administration non-mandatory schedule contract.   At a prehearing
   conference on June 18, the parties' representatives reported that
   the agency had persuaded protester that the bundling is justified
   and  had agreed to permit protester to respond to the CBD notice.
   Protester's  response would attempt  to demonstrate  that filling
   the  requirement  through  full  and  open  competition  is  more
   advantageous to  the Government than is placing  an order against
   the schedule contract in question.
 
        Following  the conference, on June 22, the parties submitted
   a joint motion to dismiss the protest with prejudice.
 
        The case is now DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  The Board's order
   of May 19 suspending the  agency's authority to proceed with this
   procurement lapses  with the issuance  of this order.   40 U.S.C.
     759(f)(2)(B) (1988).
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge