DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  October 20, 1993
                                                            
 
 
                             GSBCA 12593-P 
 
 
                        MCSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
              HERCULES DEFENSE ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Robert  A.  Mangrum,  Grace Bateman,  and  Daniel  Marino of
   Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Washington,  DC, counsel
   for Protester.
 
        Michael J.  Cunningham, Jr., and Diane-Marie  Carrero, Naval
   Regional  Contracting Center,  Philadelphia, PA; and  Jonathan H.
   Kosarin, Naval Supply  Systems Command,  Washington, DC,  counsel
   for Respondent.
 
        Alan C. Brown and Ross W. Branstetter of Miller & Chevalier,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This  protest  was  filed on  September  27,  1993,  by MCSI
   Technologies,  Inc.  (MCSI).    MCSI protested  the  award  of  a
   contract by  the Department  of the Navy  (the Navy)  to Hercules
   Defense   Electronics  Systems,   Inc.   (Hercules).     Hercules
   intervened  in the  protest  as  an intervenor  of  right.   MCSI
   contends that 1) the Navy violated the terms of its Delegation of
   Procurement Authority  by awarding to  a contractor that  did not
   meet the mandatory technical requirements of the solicitation; 2)
   the Navy did  not perform a proper  evaluation of the offers;  3)
   Hercules  has an organizational conflict of interest with respect
   to  the subject  procurement; and 4)  the Navy did  not perform a
   proper responsibility determination on Hercules.  
 
 
        On  two separate  occasions, at  the  parties' request,  the
   Board rescheduled prehearing proceedings  in order to accommodate
   the  parties' settlement discussions.   On October  20, protester
   filed a  notice  of withdrawal  with prejudice.   Respondent  and
   intervenor   also  filed  on  October  20  their  concurrence  in
   protester's  withdrawal.  Accordingly,  this protest is DISMISSED
   WITH  PREJUDICE.   Rule  28(a).    The Board's  order  suspending
   respondent's delegation  of procurement authority  lapses by  its
   own terms.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge