______________________________________________
        
              AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL: January 20, 1995
             ______________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12926-P
 
 
                             DYNCORP, INC.
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                      COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        David  S.  Cohen, C.  Patteson  Cardwell, IV,  and  G. Brent
   Connor   of Cohen  & White, Washington,  DC; and Stuart  Young of
   DynCorp, Reston, VA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Mary  H.  Egger,   Patricia  D.  Graham,  and   Patricia  A.
   Wentworth,  Office  of  General  Counsel,  Department of  Energy,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Marcia  G. Madsen,  Brian W.  Craver, and  David F.  Dowd of
   Morgan,  Lewis & Bockius, Washington,  DC; and Charles B. Machion
   and Peter A. Fish of  Computer Data Systems, Inc., Rockville, MD,
   counsel for Intervenor.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On August  5, 1994,  DynCorp, Inc.  (DynCorp) protested  the
   Department  of Energy's decision to award a sole-source extension
   of contract  number DE-ACCI-88MA33222  for information  resources
   management  support services to  Computer Data Systems,  Inc.  On
   October  6,  1994,  at  the  request of  the  parties  the  Board
   dismissed this  protest without prejudice to reinstatement within
   sixty days.
 
 
 
        On December 5,  1994, the Board  granted the parties'  joint
   motion to extend the deadline for reinstating this protest to and
   until January 20, 1995.
 
        On January  19, 1995,  the parties filed  a joint  motion to
   extend  the deadline  for reinstating  this  protest, stating  in
   part:
 
        The parties request  that the Board amend its  order of
        dismissal  because  the  ultimate  resolution  of  this
        protest is part  of the Settlement Agreement  that will
        be discussed in the parties' Joint Motion  to Vacate or
        in the Alternative  for Relief from Decision  that will
        be filed  [January 20, 1995].  The parties request that
        the Board  amend its  order of  dismissal to  read that
        GSBCA  No. 12926-P  shall   be  deemed  to   have  been
        dismissed  with prejudice  on the  day  that the  Board
        grants   the  parties'  Motion  to  Vacate  or  in  the
        Alternative  for Relief from  Decision, or five working
        days after the  issuance of any Board  decision denying
        the parties' motion.
 
        Good cause having been  shown, the parties' joint motion  is
   GRANTED.   The  last paragraph  of the  Board's amended  order of
   dismissal issued on December 5, 1994, is amended to read:
 
        This  protest  is  DISMISSED  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.    As
        provided    in    Rule 28(b)[foot #] 1     this    case
        shall be deemed  to have been dismissed  with prejudice
        on the day that the Board grants the parties' motion to
        vacate  or in the alternative for relief from decision,
        or five  working days after  the issuance of  any Board
        decision denying the parties' motion.
 
 
 
                                      _____________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1     58 Fed. Reg. 69,263 (1993) (to be codified at
   48 CFR 6101.28).