_________________________________________________
 
            DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  September 27, 1993
           _________________________________________________
        
 
                             GSBCA 12551-P
 
 
                      TELECOM DESIGN GROUP, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        F. Whitten Peters and John  T. Parry of Williams & Connolly,
   Washington,  DC,  counsel  for  Protester;  and  Jonathan  Price,
   Federal  Contracts   Manager  of  TeleCom  Design   Group,  Inc.,
   Arlington, VA, appearing for Protester.
 
        Joseph  M.  Goldstein,  Office   of  the  General   Counsel,
   Department of the Air Force,  Washington, DC; and Roy H. Leonard,
   Office of  Legal  Counsel, Air  Force  MWR and  Services  Agency,
   Department  of  the Air  Force,  San  Antonio,  TX,  counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        TeleCom  Design Group,  Inc.  protested various  aspects  of
   respondent's   solicitation   for   a   Hospitality   Reservation
   Management  System.   On September  23, 1993,  protester  filed a
   Notice  of Withdrawal  of Protest  Complaint,  which provided  as
   follows:
 
                  TeleCom Design Group, Inc. ("TeleCom") hereby
             withdraws its Protest  Complaint and requests that
             the Board dismiss this  protest without prejudice.
             This  dismissal  without  prejudice  reflects  the
             understanding of the parties and  Judge Parker, as
             reached during a conference call held on Thursday,
             September  23,  1993,  at  11:00  a.m.,   that  by
             withdrawing  this   protest  and   requesting  its
             dismissal without prejudice, TeleCom preserves the
             issues  raised  by  it in  this  protest.   Should
 
             TeleCom  decide to raise  these issues in  a post-
             award  protest,  they  will  be  timely raised  if
             (1) the  post-award protest  is  filed within  the
             time  limits of Board  Rule 5, and  (2) the issues
             were  timely  when  raised  during this  pre-award
             protest.
 
        At a conference held on the same date, respondent's  counsel
   informed the Board and protester that he could not agree, and did
   not believe that he had  agreed, to a dismissal without prejudice
   under the terms  set forth in  protester's notice of  withdrawal.
   After further  negotiation, respondent filed the  following reply
   on September 24:
 
                  The Air Force withdraws its oral objection to
             Telecom's  notice  of  withdrawal of  its  protest
             without prejudice.   In  exchange for  withdrawing
             this  objection,  Protester  has  agreed  to   the
             following:  AFNAFPO  has  the right  to  determine
             whether  it  is in  the  government's interest  to
             issue an amendment.   If  the amendment  satisfies
             all  of Telecom's concerns that were raised in its
             protest, then the protester will move the Board to
             convert  the  dismissal  without  prejudice  to  a
             dismissal  with prejudice  within  two days  after
             AFNAFPO issues  the amendment.   Absent  protester
             filing such a motion, the issues Telecom raised in
             its pre-award protest will be preserved and timely
             raised in a post-award protest if (1) a post-award
             protest is filed  within the time limits  of Board
             Rule 5, and (2) the issues were timely when raised
             during the  pre-award protest.   In addition,  the
             Air  Force  reserves  the  right  to  contest  the
             Board's jurisdiction to  hear any protest  in this
             procurement.
 
        The protest  is  DISMISSED WITHOUT  PREJUDICE in  accordance
   with the agreement  of the parties  as reflected in  respondent's
   reply.  Rule 28(a).
 
                                      _______________________
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge