DISMISSED: December 2, 1994
                                                      
 
 
                             GSBCA 13063-P
 
 
                       DATA GENERAL CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                          DESIGN DATA SYSTEMS,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        Richard J. Webber and Helen  L. Gemmill of Arent Fox Kintner
   Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Richard  Couch and  Jeffrey I.  Kessler,  Office of  Command
   Counsel,   Army  Materiel   Command,  Department  of   the  Army,
   Alexandria, VA, and Captain Kenneth J. Tozzi, Pine Bluff Arsenal,
   Pine Bluff, AR, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Douglas   L.  Patin  and   Andrew  Bramnick  of   Spriggs  &
   Hollingsworth, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). 
 
                                 ORDER
 
        Data General  Corporation protested  that the  Department of
   the  Army  violated  provisions  of  statute  and  regulation  in
   awarding a contract to Design Data Systems for the maintenance of
   computer systems at the Pine Bluff Arsenal.  Data General alleged
   that Design Data  made various misrepresentations to the  Army in
   its proposal, and  that among those misrepresentations  were that
   Design  Data could  provide personnel  qualified  to perform  the
   work.    As  a  result, Data  General  maintained,  Design Data's
   proposal did  not meet  certain mandatory  specifications of  the
   solicitation, and  the agency's assessment that it did meet those
   specifications  was improper.   Data General also  contended that
   the Army's  analysis that  Design Data's  proposal represented  a
   better  value to  the Government,  notwithstanding the  technical
   superiority of Data General's proposal, was irrational.
 
 
        Ten  calendar days  after the  protest was  filed, the  Army
   filed  a   contracting  officer's  determinations   and  findings
   regarding  this procurement.   In this document,  the contracting
   officer  stated that Design Data's proposal "contained a material
   misrepresentation  concerning  personnel available  for  contract
   performance," and that the agency's technical evaluation "was not
   conducted or documented in a  manner which would support a proper
   best value source selection."  The contracting officer determined
   that  the agency should terminate  its contract with Design Data,
   cancel the  solicitation, and issue  a new solicitation  which is
   appropriate to the agency's needs.   In filing this document, the
   Army asked that the protest be dismissed.
 
        Data   General  responded  that  if  the  Army  intends  the
   determinations  "to be  admissions  of  legal  error  which  will
   support  a   finding  by  the   Board  that   Data  General   has
   substantially prevailed in its protest and is entitled to recover
   its attorney's  fees and  costs of the  proceeding, . . .  and if
   these stipulations are recited in the Board's Order of Dismissal,
   Data General has no objection  to respondent's motion."  The Army
   then  conceded that  grounds  of  protest  are bases  for  taking
   corrective action, agreed that Data General is a prevailing party
   in  the  protest,  and stated  that  it  will  not object  to  an
   application by Data General for an award of attorney fees.
 
        The  Board  construes  this exchange  of  correspondence  to
   represent an agreement between Data General and the Army that the
   protest should be  dismissed.  We consequently  DISMISS the case.
   If Data General separately applies for an award of protest costs,
   pursuant to 40  U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C) (1988)  and Board Rule  35,
   the application will be docketed and considered separately.
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge