DISMISSED:  December 8, 1994
                                                     
 
 
                            GSBCA 13067-P   
 
 
                       ADVANCED MANAGEMENT, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                  and
 
                            DATAEQUIP, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                      MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
 
        Thomas P. Humphrey, James  J. Regan, John E.  McCarthy, Jr.,
   and Heidi J.  Stock of Crowell & Moring,  Washington, DC, counsel
   for Protester.
 
        Dr.  Pat T.  Balan, President  and CEO  of DataEquip,  Inc.,
   Colorado Springs, CO, appearing for Intervenor.
 
        Tenley  A. Carp  and  Seth P.  Binstock,  Office of  General
   Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel
   for Respondent.
 
        John E.  Jensen, W. Eric  Pilsk, Weldon H. Latham,  and Anne
   Marie   Longobucco  of   Shaw,  Pittman,   Potts   &  Trowbridge,
   Washington,  DC, counsel  for  Intervenor Management  Technology,
   Inc.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On November 14, 1994, Advanced Management, Inc. (AMI), filed
   this   protest   against   respondent,   the   General   Services
   Administration, alleging  that the  award of  a contract for  the
   acquisition  of  automatic  data  processing  equipment   support
   services  was  contrary  to  the terms  of  the  solicitation and
   violated statute  and regulation.   Management Technology,  Inc.,
   the  awardee,   intervened  on  the  side  of  respondent  as  an
   intervenor of right, and DataEquip,  Inc., intervened on the side
   of protester, as it was an unsuccessful offeror.
 
        On  November 17, the Board convened a prehearing conference,
   during  which a schedule  of further proceedings  was established
   and a date for the hearing on the merits was set.  On December 5,
   AMI withdrew its protest.  The other parties to this case have no
   objection to  AMI's withdrawal.   Accordingly,  pursuant to  Rule
   28(a) this protest is DISMISSED.
 
                                      ______________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge