___________________________________________________________
 
      MOTION FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION DENIED:  January 4, 1999
      ___________________________________________________________
 
                            GSBCA 13104-P-R
 
                       CONCEPT AUTOMATION, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                 GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                  and
 
                  INTERNATIONAL DATA PRODUCTS, CORP.,
 
                                           Intervenors.
 
        Jed L.  Babbin  and Thomas  Earl  Patton of  Tighe,  Patton,
   Tabackman & Babbin, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Col. Riggs L. Wilks, Lt. Col. Ralph L. Littlefield, Lt. Col.
   Raymond Saunders, Maj. Michael E. Chiaparas, and Maj. Randall  J.
   Vance, Office  of the  Chief Trial  Attorney,  Department of  the
   Army, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Richard  J. Conway and Sarah Merrell Efthymiou of Dickstein,
   Shapiro  &   Morin,  Washington,   DC,  counsel   for  Intervenor
   Government Technology Services, Inc.
 
        Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Eric J. Marcotte, and  Blaise Scinto of
   Winston   &  Strawn,  Washington,   DC,  counsel  for  Intervenor
   International Data Products, Corp.
 
   Before the Full Board.  
    
   PER CURIAM. 
 
        Protester, Concept  Automation,  Inc. (CAI),  has moved  for
   full Board consideration of our decision dismissing CAI s protest
   because CAI lacked  interested party status.   Concept Automation
   Inc. v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 13104-P (Jan. 25, 1995).  
 
        A  motion for reconsideration  or relief from  decision, and
   the  issuance  of   a  panel   decision  on   that  motion,   are
   preconditions to a party's request for consideration by  the full
   Board.  Rule 30(a)(2).1   CAI  has stated that it does not desire
   reconsideration by the  panel.  CAI s Response to  Board Order on
   Further Proceedings, GSBCA 13104-P-R (Feb. 9, 1995).
 
        As  CAI has not fulfilled the requirements for consideration
   by the  full Board, the  request for full Board  consideration is
   DENIED.  
 
                       
   ____________________
 
   1 The rule provides in pertinent part: "A  request for full Board
   consideration may be made by any party at any date which  is both
   (1) after the panel to which the  case is assigned has issued its
   decision on a motion for  reconsideration or relief from decision
   and (2) within 10 working days after the date on which that party
   receives that decision."  58 Fed. Reg. 69246, 69263 (1993) (to be
   codified at 48 CFR 6101.30).