DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  July 20, 1993
                                                          
 
 
                             GSBCA 12478-P 
        
 
                         PRESTON DENNIS McGEE,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
 
        Preston Dennis McGee, pro se, Glen Burnie, MD.
 
        John  R.  Osing,  Jr.,  Office  of  Counsel,  Naval  Medical
   Logistics Command,  Department of  the Navy,  Frederick, MD;  and
   Demetria  T.  Carter,  Office of  Counsel,  Naval  Supply Systems
   Command,  Department of  the Navy,  Washington,  DC, counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This protest was  filed with the  Board on July 2,  1993, by
   Preston Dennis  McGee.  Mr.  McGee protests his  elimination from
   further  consideration for  award of  a  contract with  the Naval
   Medical   Logistics   Command   for   four  computed   tomography
   technologists  at  Bethesda, MD  and/or  one  computed tomography
   technologist at Camp Pendleton, CA.  
 
        On July  7, a telephonic  prehearing conference was  held to
   discuss  with  the  parties  the  concern  raised  by  the  Board
   regarding its jurisdiction over this case.  Additionally, counsel
   for respondent advised that he had received word from the General
   Accounting Office  that protester  had filed a  protest there  as
   well.  Protester confirmed this  fact.  During this conference on
   July 7, counsel for respondent  moved that the Board dismiss this
   protest for lack of jurisdiction.    
 
        On  July  12, the  Board  convened  a second  conference  to
   discuss further development of the record  for purposes of ruling
   on  the  pending motion  to  dismiss  this  protest for  lack  of
   jurisdiction.   During that conference,  protester indicated that
   he was seriously  considering a voluntary  dismissal of the  case
   and would confer with counsel for respondent on this matter later
   in the day.   This, however, did  not occur.  Instead,  the Board
   was informed on July 13 by protester that he elected to await the
   Board's decision  on respondent's motion  to dismiss for  lack of
   jurisdiction. 
 
        On  July 19, protester telephoned the  Board to request that
   the protest be  dismissed without prejudice.  In  response to the
   request, the Board convened yet another conference with protester
   and counsel for  respondent.  At that conference  the Board noted
   that under its rules voluntary requests for dismissal are granted
   only in  accordance with a  stipulation of the parties.   Counsel
   for  respondent refused  to concur  in  the requested  dismissal.
   Shortly  after the conference was adjourned, however, counsel for
   respondent advised  the Board  in writing that  he did  concur in
   protester's request.  
 
        Accordingly,  pursuant  to  Rule  28(a),  this   protest  is
   DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  The dismissal shall become one with
   prejudice six months  from the date of this  order unless, before
   the expiration of that period,  one of the parties moves for  the
   reinstatement of this case.  
 
 
                                           _________________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge