________________________________________________ GSBCA 12573-P DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: September 23, 1993 _________________________________________________ GSBCA 12565-P, 12573-P, 12575-P VION CORPORATION, Protester, and AMDAHL CORPORATION, and INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protesters/Intervenors, and FEDERAL COMPUTER CORPORATION, Intervenor, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Irwin Goldbloom, David R. Hazelton, and Martin F. Petraitis of Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester ViON Corporation. David S. Cohen, Nikki Koulizakis, and G. Brent Connor of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester/Intervenor Amdahl Corporation. Shelton H. Skolnick, Judy D. Leishman, and Amy M. Hall of Skolnick & Leishman, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester/Intervenor Integrated Systems Group, Inc. David S. Kovach of Federal Computer Corporation, Falls Church, VA, counsel for Intervenor Federal Computer Corporation. Seth Binstock, John C. Sawyer, and Kurt D. Summers, Office of General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. PARKER, Board Judge. ORDER On September 7, 1993, the Board received the notice of intervention and protest complaint of Amdahl Corporation and docketed it as GSBCA 12573-P. The protest was consolidated with GSBCA 12565-P, ViON Corporation, and GSBCA 12575-P, Integrated Systems Group, Inc. The protests allege that solicitation No. KECF-93-0020, issued by the General Services Administration for the procurement of automatic data processing equipment, violates statute and regulation. On September 22, the Board received the joint motion of protester/intervenor Amdahl Corporation and respondent General Services Administration to dismiss GSBCA No. 12573-P without prejudice: The parties protester/intervenor Amdahl Corporation (hereinafter "protester/intervenor") and respondent General Services Administration (hereinafter "respondent") hereby stipulate and move the Board as follows: 1. Within ten (10) days of the close of any hearing in this consolidated protest ("the protest") or dismissal of the protest, whichever comes first, respondent shall issue an amendment to the Drop-in Technology RFP No. KECF-93-0020 that shall incorporate into the RFP those portions of the Source Selection Plan, including Technical Evaluation Handbook, which refer or relate to the "Prove It" performance validation methodology selected for the protested procurement. The portions of the Plan that shall be incorporated into the RFP are pages 5-9, Appendix C, Appendix D and Appendix E, except for such deletions as may be agreed to by the parties. The parties further agree that certain material in these pages and appendices may be revised for the purposes of making certain editorial or mathematical corrections. 2. Pursuant to Board Rule 28(a), the parties hereby request that this protest be dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal shall convert to a dismissal with prejudice unless this protest is reinstated within ten (10) business days after the award of a contract under the Drop-in Technology RFP No. KECF-93-0020, or three years from the date of the Board's dismissal, whichever comes first. Protester/Intervenor reserves its rights to protest any action taken by respondent in connection with this procurement on or after the date of this stipulation. 3. By dismissing this protest without prejudice, protester/intervenor specifically reserves all rights to protest any and all application, evaluation, interpretation, or utilization by respondent of the Prove It performance validation method, or any other method of evaluating or validating processor performance that may be used in this procurement, or any other matter which was alleged in the protest filed by protester/intervenor. These rights include, but are not limited to, the right to protest any application, evaluation, interpretation, consideration or utilization of the IBM Large Systems Performance Reference in the Drop-in Technology procurement. It is specifically agreed that no timeliness defense shall apply to any such protest described in this paragraph based on the failure to raise such protest prior to the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. It is further agreed that this dismissal, and all prior litigation in connection with protest GSBCA No. 12573- P, shall not operate as collateral estoppel, res judicata, bar, preclusion, adjudication of the merits, or an admission in connection with any subsequent protest that protester/intervenor may file concerning the evaluation or validation of processor performance in connection with the Drop-in procurement. It is the intent of the parties that protester/intervenor shall be able to litigate, and obtain a decision on the merits of GSBCA No. 12573-P after reinstatement to the same extent as it was able prior to the execution of this Agreement. 4. Each side shall bear their own costs, and protester/intervenor specifically waives the right to recover any protest costs incurred in connection with GSBCA No. 12573-P on or before September 23, 1993. Protests costs incurred prior to September 23, 1993 shall to be recoverable in the event that the protest is reinstated. However, protester shall have the right to claim any and all protest costs that may be incurred by protester/intervenor on or after September 23, 1993 in connection with any protest filed or reinstated after that date. The protest is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with the stipulation of the parties. Rule 28(a). __________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge