__________________________________________
 
               MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED:  June 16, 1994
               __________________________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12835-P
 
 
                      FEDERAL SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                          Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
             NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                          Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
               BOEING INFORMATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED,
 
                                  and
 
                  CICI, INC., d/b/a IDB INTERNATIONAL,
 
                                           Intervenors.
 
        Richard J. Conway of Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Sumara M. Thompson-King, Office of General Counsel, National
   Aeronautics and  Space Administration, Washington, DC,  and James
   R. Frees, Office  of the Chief Counsel, George  C. Marshall Space
   Flight  Center, Marshall  Space Flight  Center,  AL, counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
        Cyrus  E. Phillips, IV,  of Keck, Mahin  & Cate, Washington,
   DC,   counsel   for  intervenor   Boeing   Information  Services,
   Incorporated.
 
        Richard J. Webber, Matthew  S. Perlman, and John  J. O'Brien
   of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin  & Kahn, Washington, DC, counsel for
   Intervenor CICI, Inc. d/b/a IDB International.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, HENDLEY, and DEVINE.
 
   DEVINE, Board Judge.
 
        The subject  protest was filed  on May 16, 1994.   Protester
   has now  moved to dismiss  it with  prejudice.  No  objection has
   been made by intervenors.
 
        Intervenor  Boeing has moved for the imposition of sanctions
   (payment of  its attorneys  fees) upon  protester, citing  Zinger
   Construction Co.  v. GSA, GSBCA 11039-R-R, 93-1  BCA   25,426, as
   authority therefore.  The  basis on which Boeing seeks  sanctions
   is protester's bad faith in filing a frivolous protest.
 
        The  Zinger case was an appeal  under the Contracts Disputes
   Act, not a protest.   The only sanction  imposed was that  Zinger
   was forbidden, after 3 attempts  to litigate the same claim, from
   attempting to litigate a fourth  time.  It cites no statutory  or
   regulatory basis  for its  action, and is  not authority  for the
   imposition of sanctions  in a protest where the  basis of protest
   is at least colorable.
 
        The motion for sanctions is DENIED.   The protester's motion
   to  dismiss with  prejudice  is GRANTED.    The suspension  order
   heretofore entered expires by its terms.
 
                                   ___________________
                                   DONALD W. DEVINE
                                   Board Judge
 
 
   We concur:
 
   _________________               __________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                JAMES W. HENDLEY
   Board Judge                     Board Judge