______________________________________________
 
                DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  July 8, 1994
             ______________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12878-P
 
                         ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO.,
 
                                                Protester,
                                  and
 
                           KPMG PEAT MARWICK,
 
                                                Intervenor,
                                   v.
 
           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
 
                                      Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                           COOPERS & LYBRAND,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
 
        Joel  Feidelman, P.C., James  J. McCullough, Anne  B. Perry,
   Catherine   E.  Pollack,  of  Fried,  Frank,  Harris,  Shriver  &
   Jacobson, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        William A. Roberts  III, Lee Curtis,  Jerone C. Cecelic,  of
   Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor  KPMG Peat
   Merwick.
 
        John Opitz,  Office of  the General  Counsel, Department  of
   Housing  and  Urban  Development,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
        Hopewell  H. Darneille, Buel White, Dennis A. Adelson, Brian
   A.  Mizoguichi,  and John  A. Ordway,  Jr., of  Verner, Liipfert,
   Benhard, McPherson & Hand, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor
   Coopers & Lybrand.
    
   HENDLEY, Board Judge.
 
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On  June 20,  1994, the  Board docketed  a protest  filed by
   Arthur Andersen & Co. (Arthur  Andersen), against the award  made
   by  respondent  to  Coopers &  Lybrand  (C&L)  under solicitation
   number  93-3-1.    C&L  timely  intervened on  the  side  of  the
   respondent.  We  issued our standard protective  order.  Inasmuch
   as the respondent did not contest the suspension requested by the
   protester, the applicable delegation of procurement authority was
   suspended pending resolution of the protest.
 
        On June 24, 1994, KPMG Peat Marwick (KPMG) intervened on the
   side of the protester.
 
        On June  28, 1994, the Board received the protester's motion
   to withdraw its  protest with prejudice.  Thereafter,  on July 6,
   1994, the intervenor, KPMG, withdrew its  request to intervene in
   the protest.
 
        Accordingly, the protester's request to withdraw its protest
   and  the intervenor, KPMG's, request to withdraw its intervention
   are  granted.   The protest  is DISMISSED  WITH PREJUDICE.   Rule
   28(a).     The  suspension  of  the  respondent's  delegation  of
   procurement authority lapses by its own terms.
 
                                 _______________________________
                                 JAMES W. HENDLEY
                                 Board Judge