DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: October 20, 1994
                                                          
 
 
                             GSBCA 12981-P
 
 
                            COMPGRAPH, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
 
                                  and
 
                     SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondents.
 
        David  S. Cohen,  Paralee White,  William  F. Savarino,  and
   Laurel  Hockey  of Cohen  &  White, Washington,  DC,  counsel for
   Protester.
 
        Donald M. Suica and Lori R. Larson, Office of Chief Counsel,
   Internal Revenue Service, Washington,  DC, counsel for Respondent
   Department of the Treasury.
 
        John W.  Klein, Chief  Counsel for  Special Programs,  Small
   Business  Administration, counsel  for Respondent  Small Business
   Administration.
 
   DEVINE, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On  September  19,  1994,  Compgraph,  Inc.,  protested  the
   decision  of the  Internal  Revenue  Service,  a  bureau  of  the
   Department of the Treasury (IRS), to award a sole source contract
   for the supply  of portable printers  to Computer Products,  Inc.
   The  award   was   to   be   made  under   the   Small   Business
   Administration's Section 8(a)  program.   Compgraph alleged  that
   because the contract would  be for a sum in excess  of the amount
   specified for 8(a) sole source  awards, statute requires that the
   award be made through a competitive procurement.   Compgraph also
   alleged that the  agency did not have authority  from the General
   Services Administration to enter into this contract.
 
        On  October 18,  Compgraph and  the IRS  filed a  settlement
   agreement resolving the dispute.  The IRS admitted that the first
   allegation described  above is correct.   The IRS also  agreed to
   terminate and/or  withdraw its  intended award.   The  settlement
   agreement  permits the agency to  proceed with its acquisition of
   the portable printers  in question in accordance  with applicable
   statutes and regulations;  requires that Compgraph be  allowed to
   submit   a  proposal  in  any  competitive  procurement  for  the
   printers; and  requires that the  agency give protester  at least
   three business  days' written notice  prior to entering  into any
   non-competitive contract for  the printers.  Compgraph  agreed to
   withdraw its protest with prejudice.
 
        On  October 19,  Compgraph  moved  to  dismiss  the  protest
   without prejudice,  the dismissal  to become  one with  prejudice
   when  Compgraph's counsel  receives from  the IRS  a copy  of the
   withdrawal of the intended award.  Because this motion is plainly
   not the  one contemplated by  the settlement agreement,  we asked
   IRS counsel by  telephone whether the IRS objects  to the motion.
   Counsel informed us that her agency has no objection.
 
        To  effectuate the parties' wishes, the protest is DISMISSED
   WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  The dismissal shall become one with prejudice
   upon the occurrence of the event described in Compgraph's motion.
 
                                 _________________________
                                 DONALD W. DEVINE
                                 Board Judge