DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  September 2, 1993
                                                             
 
 
                             GSBCA 12563-P 
 
        
                             INTECOM INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
 
        Bob Orgeron, Regional Director, Intecom Inc., appearing  for
   Protester.
 
        John  Biedenharn, Jr.,  and Donald  H.  Schiller, Office  of
   Chief  Counsel,  Kennedy  Space Center,  Florida;  and  Sumura M.
   Thompson-King,  Office   of   the   General   Counsel,   National
   Aeronautics and Space Administration, counsel for Respondent.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER 
 
        On August 31,  1993, this protest was filed  by Intecom Inc.
   (Intecom).    It  concerns provisions  in  a  solicitation for  a
   Digital  Voice Telecommunications  System  for the  Space Station
   Processing  Facility at John  F. Kennedy Space  Center in Kennedy
   Space Center, Florida.   The protest was filed six  days prior to
   the  date  established  for  submission   of  initial  proposals.
   Protester  contends that the solicitation is unduly restrictive. 
   The solicitation was issued by the National Aeronautics and Space
   Administration (NASA).  
 
        On  September  2,   after  issuing  an  order   for  further
   proceedings,  the Board  convened the  parties  for a  prehearing
   conference.   At the  start of the  conference, counsel  for NASA
   advised the Board  that protester's request for  suspension would
   not  be  opposed.    The  Board  thereupon  granted  the  request
   effective immediately.  
 
        As the prehearing conference  progressed, the Board  learned
   that  the protester had simultaneously filed a protest concerning
   the same issues  with the agency.  After a  brief discussion, the
   parties  agreed to  the dismissal  of  the Board  protest without
   prejudice.  
 
        Accordingly,  pursuant  to   Rule  28(a)  this  protest   is
   dismissed without  prejudice.  If protester elects  to file again
   with the Board following adverse action on its agency protest, it
   must do  so  within  ten  working days  of  that  action.    Rule
   5(b)(3)(iii).    In the  event  respondent does  not  take timely
   action  on  the  agency  protest,  protester  may  move  for  the
   reinstatement of this  protest at the Board, provided  it does so
   prior to November  1.  Following that date, this  protest, in the
   absence of any request to modify this order, will be deemed to be
   dismissed with prejudice.  
 
        The Board's earlier order suspending respondent's delegation
   of  procurement  authority  is  hereby revoked.    We  note  that
   respondent  has  agreed  to  extend  the closing  date  for  this
   solicitation  to a date which will  be more than ten working days
   after the issuance of a decision on Intecom's agency protest.    
 
 
                                                __________________
                                                EDWIN B. NEILL
                                                Board Judge