DISMISSED:  October 18, 1994 
                                                         
 
 
                            GSBCA 12966-P  
 
 
                       AMERITECH SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        Buel White, Dennis  Adelson, and Brian Mizoguchi  of Verner,
   Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand, Chartered,  Washington, DC,
   counsel for Protester.
 
        George  N.  Barclay,  Pamela  J.  Reiner,  John  C.  Sawyer,
   Michael J.  Ettner, and  Seth  P.  Binstock,  Office  of  General
   Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel
   for Respondent.
 
        Michael  W. Clancy, Vincent  S. Antonacci, Kevin  P. Mullen,
   and Mary Ita  Snyder of Pettit & Martin,  Washington, DC, counsel
   for Intervenor.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This protest  was filed on  September 8, 1994,  by Ameritech
   Services, Inc., against  the award of  a contract by  respondent,
   the  General Services  Administration, to GTE  Government Systems
   Corporation  (GTE).   GTE has  intervened in  this protest  as an
   intervenor of  right.    The contract is  for the procurement  of
   telecommunications  services   and/or  equipment   to  Government
   facilities  within the specific  geographic area to  be served by
   the contract.
 
        Ameritech contends that  respondent improperly evaluated and
   rejected its proposal, failed to conduct  meaningful discussions,
   improperly  evaluated GTE's  proposal, and  failed  to perform  a
   proper technical/cost tradeoff.   The Board convened  the parties
   in a prehearing conference on September 12, 1994, and established
   a schedule for the further processing of this protest.  The Board
   established October  17-18 as  the dates for  the hearing  on the
   merits.
 
        On October 14, 1994, protester  and respondent filed a joint
   motion to dismiss the  protest with prejudice, which  states that
   they have entered into a settlement agreement which  resolves the
   issues  forming the  basis  for  the protest.    By letter  dated
   October 19, 1994,  GTE has informed  the Board that it  "does not
   join in the motion to dismiss and objects to the settlement.  The
   contract was properly  awarded to GTE.  Accordingly,  there is no
   valid  basis for  terminating GTE's  contract  and reopening  the
   competition."  An intervenor  may not block a settlement  between
   protester  and respondent.   E.g.,  Vanguard  Tech. Corp.,  GSBCA
   10127-P,  89-3  BCA    22,116,  1989  BPD   209.    Further,  the
   objection  to respondent's intent to terminate GTE's contract and
   reopen competition concerns future procurement actions, which GTE
   may protest when  such actions occurs.  See,  e.g., Logicon, Inc.
   v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 12703-P, 94-1 BCA   26,667,
   1994 BPD   15.  Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 28(a), this protest
   is DISMISSED.
 
                                      ______________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge