DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: April 18, 1994 GSBCA 12795-P SUN MICROSYSTEMS FEDERAL, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent, and DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, and HUGHES DATA SYSTEMS, and HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Intervenors. Thomas P. Humphrey, James J. Regan, John E. McCarthy, Jr., and Devon S. Engel of Crowell & Moring, Washington, DC; and Garrett L. Thomas of Sun Microsystems Federal, Inc., Mountain View, CA, counsel for Protester. Ellen D. Washington, David P. Andross, Thomas L. Frankfurt, Elizabeth Hancock, Penny Rabinkoff, Victoria Heiden Kauffman, James Y. Miyazawa, and Robert G. Sosnowski, Information Technology Acquisition Center, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Kenneth B. Weckstein and Raymond Fioravanti of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Washington, DC; and Jeffrey H. Schneider of Digital Equipment Corporation, Landover, MD, counsel for Intervenor Digital Equipment Corporation. Marcia G. Madsen, Andrew D. Ness, Brian W. Craver, Gwyn Ann Taylor, and David F. Dowd of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC; and Barbara A. Pollack of Hughes Aircraft Company, Los Angeles, CA, counsel for Intervenor Hughes Data Systems. Rand L. Allen, Philip J. Davis, and David A. Vogel of Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, DC; and Robert Chwaliszewski of Hewlett-Packard Company, Andover, MA, counsel for Intervenor Hewlett-Packard Company. GOODMAN, Board Judge. ORDER This protest was filed on March 25, 1994, by Sun Microsystems Federal, Inc. (Sun). Sun's protest challenges the terms of a solicitation issued by the Department of the Navy on the basis that provisions of the solicitation are unduly restrictive of competition, the solicitation contains other terms which are contrary to law and regulation, and the solicitation failed to permit full and open competition. Three offerors have intervened in this protest as intervenors of right. On March 31, 1994, a prehearing conference was convened by the Board, during which time discovery was authorized and a hearing on the merits was scheduled for April 29-May 5, 1994. On April 18, protester and respondent filed a Joint Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. The intervenors have posed no objection to the motion. Accordingly, this protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a). The Board's order of April 13, 1994, suspending respondent's delegation of procurement authority hereby lapses. ________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge