_______________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: September 2, 1994 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 12949-P COMDISCO, INC., Protester, v. DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, and SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Respondents, and TROY SYSTEMS, INC., Intervenor. James D. Bachman, Ron R. Hutchinson, and Alexander T. Bakos of Doyle & Bachman, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Douglas G. White, Office of General Counsel, Defense Information Systems Agency, Scott Air Force Base, IL, counsel for Respondent Defense Information Systems Agency. John E. Cornell, John C. Sawyer, and Rebecca L. Kehoe, Office of General Counsel, Personal Property Division, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent General Services Administration. John W. Klein, Office of General Counsel, Small Business Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent Small Business Administration. Paralee White, William F. Savarino, and Laurel A. Heneghan of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and NEILL. NEILL, Board Judge. This protest, filed by Comdisco, Inc. (Comdisco) on August 29, 1994, challenges the issuance of a task order for "hot sight" disaster recovery services by an activity of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). The task order was issued under a contract awarded to Troy Systems, Inc. (Troy) by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on behalf of the General Services Administration (GSA). Comdisco contends that the task order in question is outside the scope of Troy's contract. Troy has intervened in this protest as an interested party. On September 2, Comdisco, DISA, GSA, and SBA filed a joint stipulation and motion to dismiss this protest with prejudice. They advised the Board that the task order in question has been terminated for the convenience of the Government. Furthermore, they have agreed that the "hot site" services sought by the task order and the locations at which these services were to be provided are beyond the contract scope. Counsel for Troy have filed an objection to the joint motion to dismiss. They contend that the "hot site" services in question are not outside the scope of the contract. They, therefore, oppose a motion to dismiss which is based on the joint stipulation that these services are not within the contract scope. We note intervenor's objection. Nevertheless, we grant the motion to dismiss. We have previously ruled that an intervenor may not block a settlement between a protester and a respondent. Vanguard Tech. Corp., GSBCA 10127-P, 89-3 BCA 22,111, 1989 BPD 209, recon. denied, 89-3 BCA 22,116, 1989 BPD 220. If Troy believes the contracting officer's determination to terminate the task order was improper, it is, of course, free to protest the action in its own right. We see no reason, however, why the present proceeding should not be dismissed in view of the absence of any continued controversy between protester and the respondent agencies. The joint motion is granted. This protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge We concur: _______________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge _______________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge