_______________________________________________________
 
         MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED:  January 25, 1995
        _______________________________________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 12912-P-R
 
 
                   GRUMMAN DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                            Protester,
 
                                  and
 
                     FEDERAL COMPUTER CORPORATION,
 
                                             Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                              Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                        INTERGRAPH CORPORATION,
 
                                               Intervenor.
 
        Kenneth  S.  Kramer,  Lynda  Troutman  O'Sullivan, James  M.
   Weitzel, Jr., Michael  L. Waldman,  Deneen J.  Melander, Anne  B.
   Perry, and Catherine E. Pollack of Fried, Frank,  Harris, Shriver
   & Jacobson, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Gerard  F.  Doyle, James  D.  Bachman,  Scott A.  Ford,  and
   Alexander  T. Bakos of  Doyle & Bachman,  Washington, DC, counsel
   for Intervenor Federal Computer Corporation.
 
        Ellen D. Washington, M. Elizabeth Hancock, David P. Andross,
   Penny  Rabinkoff, Thomas  L. Frankfurt,  Stirling  Adams, Lis  B.
   Young, and David A. Lee,  Department of the Navy, Washington, DC,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
        Rand L. Allen and Philip J. Davis of Wiley, Rein & Fielding,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor Intergraph Corporation.
 
   Before Board Judges DEVINE, VERGILIO, and DeGRAFF.
   DEVINE, Board Judge.
 
 
        Protester  Grumman  Data  Systems Corporation  has  filed  a
   motion under our Rule 32, asking us to reconsider our decision of
   October 27,  l994, which  denied its  protest.   1994  BPD   254.
   Intervenor Federal  Computer  Corporation  has  filed  a  similar
   motion.  
        The grounds stated in support of both motions to reconsider,
   however, have  all been raised and decided against both protester
   and intervenor in the original decision.
     
        In view  of  the  foregoing  neither the  majority  nor  the
   dissent see any reason to change their respective positions.
 
                                Decision
 
        Both motions to reconsider are therefore DENIED.
 
 
      
                                           ________________
                                           DONALD W. DEVINE
                                           Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _________________                       __________________
   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF                       JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge                             Board Judge