___________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: June 3, 1993 ___________________________________________ GSBCA 12437-P CTA INCORPORATED, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Respondent, and HUGHES TRAINING, INC. Intervenor. Michael L. Burack, William J. Kolasky, Jr., Jonathan Jacob Nadler, Christopher M. Heimann, and Brian X. Gaul of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Clarence D. Long, III, and Joseph M. Goldstein, Office of the General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. John S. Pachter, Jonathan D. Shaffer, and Julie E. K. Chung of Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & D'Ambrosio, Vienna, VA; and Barbara A. Pollack of Hughes Training, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, counsel for Intervenor. PARKER, Board Judge. ORDER CTA Incorporated filed this protest with the Board on May 21, 1993, alleging that the award of a contract by the Department of the Air Force for the acquisition of hardware and software for the Air Force's Unit Training Device program violated statute and regulation. Hughes Training, Inc., the awardee of the contract, intervened as of right on May 25. On June 3, the Board received the protester's motion for voluntary dismissal, which provided as follows: Protester CTA Incorporated ("CTA") has decided to withdraw this Protest and proceed instead in the General Accounting Office ("GAO"). Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 28(a)(1) of the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals Rules of Procedure, CTA hereby moves the Board for the immediate entry of an order voluntarily dismissing the above-captioned Protest. A proposed order is attached. Counsel for the Respondent Department of the Air Force (the "Air Force") and counsel for Intervenor Hughes Training, Inc. ("Hughes") have authorized us to state that they do not oppose this Motion, but that in so doing they do not waive whatever rights they may have at GAO. Because the deadline for filing a GAO protest is imminent, CTA respectfully requests immediate consideration of this Motion. This protest is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE TO REFILING AT THIS BOARD. ______________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge