________________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: November 16, 1993 ________________________________________________ GSBCA 12560-P, 12566-P FEDERAL COMPUTER CORPORATION, and I-NET, INC., Protesters/Intervenors, and INTERNATIONAL DATA PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent, and TISOFT, INC., Intervenor. James D. Bachman, Ron R. Hutchinson, and Scott A. Ford of Doyle & Bachman, Washington, DC; and David S. Kovach, General Counsel of Federal Computer Corporation, Falls Church, VA, counsel for Protester/Intervenor Federal Computer Corporation. Richard J. Conway and Joel Freid of Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, Vienna, VA; and David W. Wells, Vice President and General Counsel of I-Net, Inc., Bethesda, MD, counsel for Protester/ Intervenor I-Net, Inc. Carl J. Peckinpaugh of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hawer, and Feld, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor International Data Products Corporation. James R. Dietz, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and R. Alan Miller, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. William A. Bradford, Jr., Pierre M. Donahue, Timothy L. Schroer, David W. Burgett, Robert J. Kenney, Jr., Douglas A. Fellman, Thomas L. McGovern, III, and James K. Trefil of Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor TISOFT, Inc. LaBELLA, Board Judge. ORDER Federal Computer Corporation (FCC) and I-Net, Inc. (I-Net) have filed protests against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the award of a contract to Tisoft, Inc. FCC filed its protest with the Board on August 27, 1993, and I-Net filed its protest on August 31, 1993. Both protests were subsequently amended. The contract is for the acquisition of hardware, software, maintenance, integration support and technical support services to upgrade Tempest Intelligent Workstations. FCC and I-Net alleged that the FBI violated statute and regulation in awarding the contract to Tisoft. On November 12, 1993, the Board received a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal. The parties have requested that the protests be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the parties' request is granted. These protest are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). VINCENT A. LaBELLA Board Judge