_________________________________________________________
 
                MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF 
         INTERVENTION OF RIGHT OF TRESP ASSOCIATES, INC. DENIED
                            October 24, 1994
       _________________________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12999-P
 
                     COLUMBIA SERVICES GROUP, INC.,
 
                                        Protester,
                                  and
 
                        TRESP ASSOCIATES, INC.,
 
                                        Permissive Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        David  R. Smith, General Counsel of Columbia Services Group,
   Inc.,  Arlington, VA;  and John  R. Tolle  of Barton,  Mountain &
   Tolle, McLean, VA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Mary Beth  Bosco, Timothy B.  Mills, Glenn T.  Reynolds, and
   Christy L. Gherlein, of Patton Boggs, Washington, DC, counsel for
   Permissive Intervenor.
 
        Mary D. Copeland, Wendy E.  Ojeda, and Nicole Porter, Office
   of Chief Counsel,  Department of Energy,  Oak Ridge, TN,  counsel
   for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, HYATT, and VERGILIO.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        TRESP Associates,  Inc. filed a notice of intervention as of
   right  and, alternatively,  as a  permissive  intervenor, in  the
   protest of Columbia  Services Group, Inc.   TRESP had  previously
   filed   a  protest  with  the  General  Accounting  Office  (GAO)
   involving  the same  procurement.   As stated  in its  notice and
   motion, TRESP  sought to pursue,  as an intervenor of  right, its
   own (distinct) bases of protest before this Board, given that GAO
   would dismiss the protest pending there.
 
        By order  dated October  18, 1994,  the  Board (through  the
   panel  chairman) denied  TRESP's  motion  to  participate  as  an
   intervenor of right, and granted TRESP's motion to participate as
   a permissive intervenor.  The Board stated:
 
             Having elected to file a protest at the GAO, under
        the  statute,  [40  U.S.C.     759(f)(1)  (1988),]  the
        election  precludes TRESP  from filing  a protest  with
        this Board.   To  permit TRESP to  intervene of  right,
        with all of the rights of a party, Rule 5(b)(4), and to
        raise  and pursue  its  own  issues  of  protest  would
        circumvent the dictates of statute.
 
             . . . .
 
             Consistent with  statute, the Rules  of the  Board
        preclude TRESP from participating in this protest as an
        intervenor  of right.  By definition such an intervenor
        is an interested  party which has  not filed a  protest
        with  the GAO.   Rule 1(b)(8).   The actions  of GAO in
        dismissing  (or not) the protest there, do[] not affect
        the  authority of  this Board  which  is enunciated  in
        statute.
 
 
        On   October  21,   1994,   TRESP   filed   a   motion   for
   reconsideration of the  order denying it status as  an intervenor
   of  right.   In support  of its  contention  that the  Board must
   revisit  and reverse  the denial  of its  intervention of  right,
   TRESP asserts, with argument, that the "decision is fundamentally
   unfair and violates Constitutional  due process principles"; that
   "the Board  erred in construing  the Brooks Act  'forum shopping'
   provision, 40 U.S.C.   759(f)(1) (1988), as precluding TRESP from
   raising and pursuing  its own issues of protest  before the Board
   simply because TRESP  earlier had filed a GAO protest  as to this
   Procurement--even  though GAO  has dismissed  that protest";  and
   that "the  Board's decision  is in error  because it  thwarts the
   Congressional  intent,  evidenced  in the  CICA  [Competition  in
   Contracting Act] provisions  establishing the GAO/GSBCA automatic
   data processing bid  protest relationship, that every  offeror be
   afforded the opportunity to  obtain effective protest  remedies."
   TRESP Motion at 2-3 (Oct. 21, 1994).
 
        TRESP filed at GAO a protest involving this procurement.  In
   light of the preclusive election enunciated in statute, 40 U.S.C.
     759(f)(1), and  the Board  definition of  intervenor of  right,
   Rule 1(b)(8),  TRESP has not  put forward a  reasonable rationale
   for  the Board  to revisit  the question  of its  intervention of
   right.[foot #] 1      Accordingly,  the   Board   DENIES  TRESP's
   motion for reconsideration.
 
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
        [foot #] 1                      TRESP   here  premises   its
   motion  on  the  assertion that  the  Board's  interpretation and
   application of  the statute and  Board rules is improper.   TRESP
   takes  as a  given  that  the GAO  regulation,  which dictates  a
   dismissal of a  protest at that forum if a  protest involving the
   same  procurement  is pending  at  the  Board, 4  CFR  21.3(m)(6)
   (1994),  is consistent with  the Competition in  Contracting Act,
   which permits protesters to select  a forum and obtain a decision
   within a set period of time.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
                                        _________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge
   We concur:
   _________________________            _________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                     CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge                          Board Judge