_________________________________________
 
               MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED:
                            January 10, 1994
               _________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12692-P
 
 
                     SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                  and
 
 
                  GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                                Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                  DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                       GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Carl  J. Peckinpaugh, Scott M. Heimberg, Janet Z. Barsy, and
   Sheila C. Stark of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Washington,
   DC;  and Julie Lunceford Witcher, George  J. Affe, and Anthony L.
   Cogswell, Sprint Communications Company, Herndon, VA, counsel for
   Protester.
 
        George   W.  Stiffler,   Charles M.   Reifel,  and   Nick R.
   Hoogstraten of Bastianelli,  Brown & Touhey, Washington,  DC; and
   Sidney G.  Masri, Assistant  General Counsel  for GTE  Government
   Systems  Corporation,  counsel   for  Intervenor  GTE  Government
   Systems Corporation.
 
        Douglas G. White and H.  Jack Shearer, Office of the General
   Counsel,  Defense  Information  Systems Agency,  Scott  Air Force
   Base,  IL; and  John  R.  McCaw, Gregory  C.  Carter, and  Robert
   Zuckerman,  Office   of  the  Chief  Counsel,   Federal  Aviation
   Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.  
 
        Jeffrey  H. Smith, J. Robert Humphries, Ronald A. Schechter,
   and Susan B. Cassidy of  Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, counsel
   for Intervenor Government Systems, Inc.
         
   Before Board Judges PARKER, NEILL, and HYATT.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
         
        This  protest, filed by  Sprint Communications Co. (Sprint),
   challenges the  award of  a contract  by the  Defense Information
   Systems Agency (DISA)  to Government  Systems, Inc.  (GSI).   The
   contract was  awarded by DISA  on behalf of the  Federal Aviation
   Administration (FAA).   It calls for the furnishing  of an agency
   data telecommunications network for FAA.  
 
        GSI   and  GTE   Government  Systems   Corporation,  another
   participant in  this procurement,  have both  intervened in  this
   protest as intervenors of right.  
 
        GSI  has filed  a  dispositive  motion  requesting  that  we
   dismiss Count V of Sprint's protest.   The motion is styled as  a
   motion to dismiss but concludes with a prayer for summary relief.
   For the reasons set out below, we deny the motion.  
 
 
                               Background
 
        The count  which is  the subject of  GSI's motion  reads, in
   part, as follows: 
 
        On  information and  belief, the  Government failed  to
        properly  evaluate  Sprint's technical  and  management
        proposals by downgrading them for purported weaknesses.
        By  failing  to   identify  some  of   these  purported
        weaknesses   in  Sprint's   technical  and   management
        proposals, the  Government unfairly deprived  Sprint of
        the   opportunity    to   correct    the   government's
        misconceptions or remedy  these minor deficiencies  and
        improve its chances for award.  
 
   Sprint's First Amended Complaint   62.  
 
        GSI contends that the Government raised the areas of concern
   with Sprint's  proposals  in numerous  written discussion  items.
   For  many of  the weaknesses, Sprint  is said to  have been given
   multiple opportunities to  satisfy the Government's requirements.
   For  this  reason,  GSI  contends  that  Sprint's  allegation  of
   improper  discussions should  be  denied.   See  GSI's Motion  to
   Dismiss at 4.
 
                               Discussion
 
        In seeking summary  relief on Count V, GSI  has not provided
   us with any statement of uncontested facts as required by Rule 8.
   GSI's  motion refers to   various "Int." paragraphs -- presumably
   "interrogatories."     It  is  unclear,  however,  whether  these
   references  are to the  interrogatories themselves or  to answers
   provided to  them.  In any  event, neither has been  proposed for
   inclusion  in  the record  or provided  to us  in support  of the
   motion.   
        Protester  has submitted  a  detailed and  amply  documented
   opposition to GSI's  motion.  Upon review of  this submission, we
   are  convinced that there are several disputed issues of material
   fact regarding Sprint's  discussions with the Government.   Given
   GSI's failure to demonstrate the  absence of such issues, summary
   relief  is  clearly  inappropriate  at  this  time.    Copeland's
   Enterprises, Inc. v. CNV, Inc., 945 F.2d 1563, 1565-66 (Fed. Cir.
   1991); Armco, Inc. v. Cyclops Corp., 791 F.2d 147, 149 (Fed. Cir.
   1986);  Integrated Systems Group,  Inc., GSBCA 11494-P,  92-1 BCA
     24,621,  at 122,807  n.2, 1991  BPD    335, at  2 n.2;  Griffin
   Services, Inc., GSBCA 11171, 91-3 BCA   24,156, at 120,872.   
 
                                Decision
 
        GSI's request for summary relief  on Count V of this protest
   is DENIED.
 
                                                ____________________
                                                EDWIN B. NEILL
                                                Board Judge 
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _______________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER 
   Board Judge 
 
 
   _______________________
   CATHERINE B. HYATT 
   Board Judge