DISMISSED        :  February 2, 1995
                                                       
 
 
                            GSBCA 13136-C(12895-P)
 
 
                         SIEBE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
             (BARBER-COLMAN/ROBERTSHAW CONTROL SYSTEMS DIVISION),
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                      v.
 
                            DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Timothy  F. Brown  of  Watt, Tieder  &  Hoffar, McLean,  VA,
   counsel for Protester.
 
        Craig R. Schmauder, Scot  M. Caleb, and Saul Perloff,  Corps
   of
   Engineers,  Department of the  Army, Washington, DC,  counsel for
   Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (CHAIRMAN), DEVINE, and HYATT.
 
   DEVINE, Board Judge.
 
                                       
        This cost  case arose  out of an  earlier protest  which was
   settled by agreement  of the parties.   The settlement  included,
   according to the recitations in  the joint motion to dismiss with
   prejudice, an agreement that protester was a prevailing party and
   entitled to attorney's fees and costs  not to exceed $10,000.  It
   also included an agreement to dismiss the protest with prejudice.
 
        In accordance with  the parties' agreement, the  protest was
   dismissed  on July  28,  1994.   The  dismissal  order recited  a
   synopsis  of the parties'  agremeents, including the  ageement on
   fees  and costs.    Under  our Rules,  all  dismissals are  "with
   prejudice" unless otherwise stated.
        
        The  present cost case was filed thereafter in the form of a
   "Joint Motion to  Confirm Award of Fees" pursuant  to the Board's
   dismissal order of July 28, 1994. Since that order merely recited
   the parties' agreement on fees, but did not award fees, the Board
   issued a show cause order  dated January 11, 1995, directing both
   parties to  show cause  on or  before January 16,  1995, why  the
   Joint Motion should not be dismissed.
 
 
        No  response  has  been  received  from  either  party.    A
   telephone query  directed to the  Army by the Board  elicited the
   response that  the parties  would not respond  to the  show cause
   order and were  exploring other means of dealing  with the matter
   raised by the motion.
 
        In view  of the  foregoing, the  parties' "Joint  Motion" is
   DISMISSED.
 
 
                              
                                           ____________________
                                           DONALD W. DEVINE
                                           Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ____________________                    ____________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                      CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge                             Board Judge