DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  November 3, 1993
                                                            
 
        
                             GSBCA 12633-P 
 
 
                      COMPUTERVISION CORPORATION,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                    INTEGRATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Devon E. Hewitt, and Arnold R. Finlayson
   of  Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Washington, DC; and Robert
   C. Wood of  Computervision Corporation, Bedford, MA,  counsel for
   Protester.
 
        Linda  A. Donaghy  and  Barbara  H.  Linden, Office  of  the
   General  Counsel,  Justice  Management  Division,  Department  of
   Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.            
 
        David S.  Cohen  and  Andrew  Tenenbaum of  Cohen  &  White,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On October 8, 1993, Computervision Corporation protested the
   award  of  a contract  by  the  Department  of Justice  (DOJ)  to
   Integration Technologies  Group (ITG).   ITG  intervened in  this
   protest as an  intervenor of right.  The  procurement in question
   is  for   maintenance  services   for  hardware,  software,   and
   associated peripheral equipment for the United  States Attorneys'
   Offices of the DOJ.  Protester contends  that respondent violated
   statute  and regulation  in  that  it awarded  a  contract to  an
   offeror whose  proposal was  technically noncompliant;  failed to
   conduct  a  proper  cost-technical tradeoff  as  required  by the
   solicitation; failed to conduct meaningful discussions; failed to
   provide  for  full  and open  competition;  utilized  undisclosed
   evaluation criteria  for the technical  evaluation; and  violated
   the prohibition  against auction  techniques by  engaging in  two
   rounds of discussion and BAFOs.
 
 
        On  October 13, the  Board convened a  prehearing conference
   and established a  discovery schedule and set the  hearing on the
   merits for November 16-17, 1993.   On November 3, protester filed
   a motion to  withdraw its  protest with  prejudice.   Protester's
   motion is  GRANTED.  This  protest is  DISMISSED WITH  PREJUDICE.
   Rule 28(a).   The Board's  order of October 14,  1993, suspending
   respondent's delegation of procurement authority hereby lapses.
 
                                 ________________________
                                 ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                 Board Judge