__________________________________________________________
 
         NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF OPINION UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER:
                           February 10, 1995
       __________________________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 13107-P
 
 
                 AT&T CORP., NETWORK SYSTEMS DIVISION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                     NORTEL FEDERAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        Francis J.  O'Toole, David  Lewis, Howard  Stanislawski, and
   Joseph  C. Port,  Jr., of  Sidley &  Austin, Washington,  DC; and
   Nathaniel Friends and Steven W.  DeGeorge of AT&T, Silver Spring,
   MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        Clarence D. Long, III, Office of General Counsel, Department
   of the Air Force, Washington,  DC; and Major Mark R. Land,  USAF,
   Donald M. Weight,  and George  W. Holliday,  McClellan Air  Force
   Base, CA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        William  H. Butterfield,  Kevin P.  Connelly,  and Trisa  J.
   Thompson of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather  & Geraldson, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE, and BORWICK.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
          NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF OPINION UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER
 
        On February 10, 1995, the  Board issued its decision in this
   protest.  The protest was granted.   We found that the Department
   of the  Air Force's  cost-technical tradeoff  and award  decision
   were irrational  because they  were based  on evaluation  ratings
   which are  insupportable in  light of  evidence possessed  by the
   agency itself.  We directed the Air Force to reconsider its award
   decision,  taking into  account the  conclusions  reached in  our
   opinion.
 
 
        Because the Board's  decision contains information  which is
   considered   by  the  parties  to  be  procurement  sensitive  or
   proprietary,  we initially  issued the  decision  subject in  its
   entirety  to a  protective order.    Each party  is requested  to
   advise  the Board,  no later  than  Friday, February  17, of  any
   redactions it considers appropriate.  The  Board will then review
   the parties'  comments and decide  what portions  of the  opinion
   will be made public.
 
                                      ___________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge