DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  October 29, 1993
                                                             
 
        
                             GSBCA 12605-P 
 
 
              INFORMATION & TELECOMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIES
                             JOINT VENTURE,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                      COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Kenneth S. Kramer, Douglas W.  Baruch, and Pamela A. Roth of
   Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington, DC, counsel
   for Protester.
 
        Ellen  D. Washington  and M. Elizabeth  Hancock, Information
   Technology   Acquisition   Center,   Department   of  the   Navy,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Charles  B. Machion  and Suzanne  Ferrara  of Computer  Data
   Systems, Inc., Rockville, MD, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This protest was filed on September 30, 1993, by Information
   &  Telecommunications  Strategies  Joint  Venture  (ITS).     ITS
   challenges the Department of  the Navy's (respondent) award  of a
   contract   to  Computer  Data   Systems,  Inc.  (CDSI)   for  the
   procurement of automatic  data processing software, support,  and
   services.   CDSI intervened  in the protest  as an  intervenor of
   right.   ITS's  protest  alleges  irregularities  and  errors  in
   respondent's  evaluation  and   consideration  of  its  proposal,
   thereby violating statute and regulation.
 
        On October 5, 1993, a  prehearing conference was convened by
   the  Board  during  which time  discovery  was  authorized and  a
   hearing on the  merits was scheduled for November 8-9,  1993.  On
   October  27, protester  and respondent  filed  a Joint  Motion to
   Dismiss which states, in part:
 
             4.  In recognition thereof, the Navy, CDSI and ITS
        have agreed to certain remedial action . . . .
 
             5.  Upon  implementation  of the  remedial  action
        noted in paragraph  4 above, . . .  ITS agrees that its
        protest should be dismissed without prejudice . . . . 
 
        Accordingly, this  protest is  DISMISSED WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.
   Rule 28(a).   This  dismissal shall convert  to a  dismissal with
   prejudice 120 days  from the date  of this order  unless a  party
   moves for reinstatement of the protest prior to the expiration of
   the 120-day period.
 
                                 ________________________
                                 ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                 Board Judge