DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED: February 25, 1994
                                                           
 
 
                            GSBCA 12709-P-R
 
 
                  TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT GROUP, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  DULLES NETWORKING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        John  A. McEwan, President  of Technology Advancement Group,
   Inc., Chantilly, VA, appearing for Protester. 
 
        Donald S. Safford, Office of General Counsel, Naval Regional
   Contracting  Center  Detachment,  Long Beach,  CA;  and  Anita M.
   LeBlanc, Office of General Counsel, Naval Supply Systems Command,
   Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        B.  David Whitehead,  Vice  President  of Dulles  Networking
   Associates, Inc., Sterling, VA, appearing for Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), NEILL, and GOODMAN.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge. 
 
        On February  9, the  Board denied  a  protest by  Technology
   Advancement Group, Inc.,  against the award of a  contract by the
   Department of the Navy  for the supply of  microcomputer systems.
   A  copy of the  decision was  received by  protester on  the same
   date.   On  February  24,  protester  moved  for  reconsideration
   pursuant to Board Rule 32.
 
        Rule  32   states   that  in   a  protest,   a  motion   for
   reconsideration  shall be filed  within seven working  days after
   the date of receipt by the moving party of  the Board's decision.
   58 Fed.  Reg. 69246, 69264 (Dec. 30, 1993)  (to be codified at 48
   CFR  6101.32(c)).   The date  of filing  of this  motion  was ten
   working  days after  protester's  receipt of  the decision.   The
   motion is consequently untimely.
 
 
        We  note  that our  Rules  of  Procedure changed  while  the
   underlying  case  was  pending.   The  new  rules  govern further
   proceedings in cases pending on  the effective date of the rules,
   "except to the extent that in the opinion of the Board, their use
   in  a particular  case pending  on  the effective  date would  be
   infeasible or would work an  injustice, in which event the former
   procedure  applies."    Rule  1(a).    We  do  not  believe  that
   application  of the  new rules  to  a motion  for reconsideration
   would be  infeasible or would work  an injustice.  Under  the old
   rules as well, however, the motion would be  untimely; it was not
   filed within  ten  calendar days  of protester's  receipt of  the
   protest decision.  48 CFR 6101.2(c), 6101.32(c) (1993).
 
                                Decision
 
        The  motion  for reconsideration  is  DISMISSED  AS UNTIMELY
   FILED.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   _________________________          _________________________
   EDWIN B. NEILL                     ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                        Board Judge