__________________________________________
 
               DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: March 7, 1995
               __________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 13203-P
 
 
                          IMS SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                        Protester, 
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                        Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                           SRS TECHNOLOGIES,
 
                                        Intervenor.
 
        Keith  L. Baker,  Sean P.  Morgan, and  Darin R.  Bartram of
   Eckert  Seamans Cherin  & Mellott,  Washington,  DC, counsel  for
   Protester.
 
        Robert  M. Jusko, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division,
   Department of the Navy, Point Mugu, CA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Alan M. Grayson  and Hugh J. Hurwitz of Law  Offices of Alan
   M. Grayson, McLean, VA, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        On February 24, 1995, IMS Services, Inc. filed this protest,
   maintaining that the respondent, the  Department of the Navy, had
   improperly  selected SRS Technologies (an intervenor of right) in
   a negotiated procurement.  The protester asserts that the  agency
   conducted  an  improper  cost  or  price   reasonableness/realism
   analysis of the SRS proposal and best and final offer.
 
        On March 2,  the parties filed a joint  motion for voluntary
   dismissal  without prejudice subject to the conditions of a joint
   stipulation.   In  the joint  stipulation, the  agency  agrees to
   provide the protester  with notice within one day  of its receipt
   of  decisions  by  the Small  Business  Administration  regarding
   protests filed there by the protester and the agency.  The agency
   agrees  not  to  award  a  contract  pursuant  to  the  protested
   solicitation prior to confirmation of receipt by the protester of
   the  agency's   notice  of   intent  to   make  such   an  award.
   Additionally, 
 
 
        [The dismissal without  prejudice is not to  affect the
        merits  of the  issues  or  possible  defenses  to  the
        protest.]  Further, the parties waive any objections on
        the basis of timeliness to any subsequent reinstatement
        of this Protest, so long as IMS reinstates this Protest
        within  five (5) working  days after receipt  of notice
        from the  Navy of  the Navy's  intention to  make award
        . . . .  This waiver  does not apply to  any timeliness
        defenses that the parties may have to the issues raised
        in this Protest, which existed  as of the date of IMS's
        filing   of   the  Protest   on   February   24,  1995.
        Additionally,  the  waiver  does   not  apply  to   any
        timeliness   issues  as   expressed  by   the  previous
        sentence, nor  to any  additional issues,  raised in  a
        subsequently reinstated Protest.
 
   Joint  Motion  at 2  (  3).    The parties  also  agree  that the
   dismissal  shall  be  deemed  to  be  with  prejudice should  the
   protester not reinstate  this protest within the time  period set
   forth in paragraph three.
 
        The  Board   DISMISSES  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE   the  underlying
   protest.  The dismissal becomes one with prejudice if the protest
   is  not reinstated  within five  working days of  the protester's
   receipt of the agency's notice of intent to make an award  in the
   underlying procurement.
 
 
 
                                        ________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge