___________________________________________ DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: June 9, 1995 ___________________________________________ GSBCA 13224-P, 13232-P CORRECTIONAL COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, Protester/Intervenor, and AT&T CORP., Protester/Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent, and GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Intervenor. James J. Regan, Thomas P. Humphrey, Cameron S. Hamrick, John E. McCarthy, Jr., and Heidi J. Stock of Crowell & Moring, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester/Intervenor Correctional Communication Corporation. Gerard F. Doyle, Ron R. Hutchinson, and Alexander T. Bakos of Doyle & Bachman, Washington, DC; and Nathaniel Friends, Steven H. Talkovsky, and Steven W. DeGeorge of AT&T Corp., Silver Spring, MD, counsel for Protester/Intervenor AT&T Corp. Arnold M. Auerhan and Elizabeth Nagy, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. David V. Anthony, Richard J. Vacura, Nanci S. Redman, Mary Ita Snyder, and Chandra Emery of Piper & Marbury, Washington, DC; and Samuel J. Wilson of GTE Government Systems Corporation, Information Systems Division, Chantilly, VA, counsel for Intervenor GTE Government Systems Corporation. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. ORDER On March 17, 1995, Correctional Communication Corporation (CCC) protested a series of actual or proposed modifications of existing contract number JADPC-02 issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in favor of GTE Government Systems, Federal Division (GTE) on April 26, 1991. The contract was for the installation of the Inmate Telephone System (ITS) and for communications hardware, software, and maintenance for the controlling, switching, and monitoring of voice telephone calls made by inmates in the various federal correctional facilities throughout the country. The modifications will add or have added an automated collect call operator (ACCO) capability to the contract. CCC requested that the Board terminate modifications of the GTE contract and order a competitive procurement for the ACCO requirement. On March 21, 1995, GTE Government Systems Corporation timely intervened on the side of respondent. On March 30, 1995, AT&T Corporation (Consumer Communication Division) (AT&T) intervened on the side of the protester. On April 6, 1995, AT&T filed its own protest, GSBCA 13232-P, alleging that the modifications were outside the scope of the contract and materially changed the payment scheme from a fixed price contract to a revenue sharing method of contract payment, and that the modifications are void for a lack of proper delegation of procurement authority. By order dated April 7, 1995, the Board consolidated the protests and suspended all proceedings in order to permit the parties to reach settlement. On May 5, 1995, the parties advised the Board that they had achieved a settlement in principle and that the only issue which remained to be resolved was the reasonableness of protesters' claimed costs. On May 25, 1995, the parties requested Board-assisted alternate dispute resolution (ADR) on the matter of the reasonableness of protest costs. Subsequently, the Board received the cost applications and various detailed submissions from the parties. On June 6, 1995, the Board, for the purposes of mediation, required a supplemental submission from respondent, which was filed on June 7, 1995. Because the protests are resolved except for this ancillary ADR matter, the Board is dismissing the underlying protests without prejudice. The Board anticipates that the ADR matter on the unresolved aspects of the claimed costs will be resolved within thirty days. In light of this, these protests are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and may be reinstated on or before July 10, 1995. Rule 27(c). _____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge