COUNTS III THROUGH VI OF PROTEST COMPLAINT DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: December 2, 1993 GSBCA 12667-P PINDAR DONNELLEY PARTNERSHIP, Protester, and GRAPHICDATA, INC., Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent, and INTERNATIONAL COMPUTAPRINT CORPORATION, Intervenor. Michael A. Nemeroff, Francis J. O'Toole, Gary P. Quigley, Joseph C. Port, Jr., and Denise W. DeFranco of Sidley & Austin, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Richard D. Lieberman, J. Randolph MacPherson, and Jane B. Maxwell of Sullivan & Worcester, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor GraphicData, Inc. Jerry A. Walz, Mark Langstein, Lisa J. Obayashi, and Fred Kopatich, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Finance and Litigation, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Joseph J. Petrillo, Michael A. Hordell, Laurel A. Heneghan, and Jessica C. Abrahams of Petrillo & Hordell, Washington, DC; and Burton Schwalb of Schwalb, Donnenfeld, Bray & Silbert, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor International ComputaPrint Corporation. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. ORDER On November 5, 1993, Pindar Donnelley Partnership (Pindar) filed a protest challenging the proposed award of a contract by the Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office, to International ComputaPrint Corporation (ICC) under request for proposals number 52-PAPT-0-00027. On November 30, 1993, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss Counts III through VI of Pindar's protest complaint, stating, in part: The undersigned, expecting, based on the Board's statements at the November 17-18, 1993 hearing, that the Board will rule on or before December 14, 1993 on the ADPE/DPA [automatic data processing equipment/delegation of procurement authority] issues now before it, and having the objective to conserve the resources of the Board and the parties while preserving the status quo pending the Board's resolution of the ADPE/DPA issues and determination of the appropriate remedy, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Protester Pindar Donnelley ("Pindar") will dismiss without prejudice the claims set forth in COUNT THREE through COUNT SIX . . . . 2. If the Board determines that it has jurisdiction, Protest[e]r may refile the claims set forth in paragraph 1, above within three days after Respondent notifies the undersigned of its decision concerning this procurement in response to the Board's ruling on the ADPE/DPA issues. 3. If filed within said three-day period, filing of the claims set forth in paragraph 1 will be deemed timely, except that any timeliness issues that have been or could be properly raised with respect to the Protest[e]r's original Protest Complaint . . . . 4. Respondent will continue suspension of the award, pursuant to Request for Proposals No. 52-PAPT-0-00027 until the Board rules in Respondent's favor on the ADPE/DPA issues or, if the claims set forth in paragraph 1, above, are refiled, until the Board rules on such claims. 5. Nothing in this stipulation will be deemed to prejudice any rights which the undersigned may have to award of protest costs and/or bid and proposal costs. 6. Nothing in this stipulation will be deemed to permit any of the undersigned to raise any timeliness issues that it could not properly raise with respect to the original Protest Complaint . . . . 7. One business day after the Board approves this stipulation, the undersigned shall each return to the originating party, and retain no copy of (1) the protest file, (2) all discovery replies, except for those dealing with issues of timeliness, and (3) all other protected material. Each party receiving protected material under this paragraph shall retain it until either award of a contract under RFP No. 52-PAPT- 00-00027 or refiling of protest claims pursuant to paragraph 4, above. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, Counts III through VI of the protest complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.[foot #] 1 This dismissal shall convert to one with prejudice three days from the date respondent notifies the parties of its decision concerning this procurement in response to the Board's ruling on the automatic data processing equipment/delegation of procurement issues unless any party requests reinstatement prior to that date. Respondent shall notify the parties of its decision concerning this procurement in writing and shall transmit such notification via facsimile machine. _____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Given that after the filing of the stipulation the Board dismissed GraphicData, Inc.'s (GDI's) protest, the Board does not accept the parties' stipulation concerning GDI's protest.