DISMISSED:  June 1, 1995
                                                   
 
 
                             GSBCA 13249-P
 
 
                     COMPULINE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Gadema  K.  Quoquoi, President  of  Compuline International,
   Inc., Staten Island, NY, appearing for Protester.
 
        Jody  Burton and Seth  Binstock, Office of  General Counsel,
   General Services  Administration,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On November  11,  1994,  respondent,  the  General  Services
   Administration  (GSA),  issued a  solicitation for  proposals for
   general purpose  commercial automatic  data processing  equipment
   and services.   The solicitation was for  multiple award schedule
   contracts.  Protester, Compuline International, Inc. (Compuline),
   submitted an  offer for various  pieces of hardware  and software
   under the  solicitation on December  13, 1994.  The  closing date
   for  receipt of  proposals was  December 14,  1994.   On numerous
   occasions during  the month  of March  1995, respondent  notified
   protester  that, as required  by the  solicitation, it  needed to
   submit GSA Form 527 regarding information relating to Compuline's
   financial responsibility  to perform the  contract.  On  April 4,
   1995,  respondent closed Compuline's case for nonresponse, and on
   April 25,  1995, Compuline  filed this  protest  with the  Board.
   Protester alleges that respondent violated statute and regulation
   by not awarding a schedule contract to Compuline.
 
        On  May 10,  1995,  respondent filed  a  motion for  summary
   relief and/or motion  to dismiss with prejudice.  On  May 17, the
   Board  convened   the  parties   in  a   conference  to   discuss
   respondent's motion.  The Board concluded that the case could not
   be  resolved on  summary relief  or based  on the  current record
   because  an issue  of material  fact  remained in  dispute.   The
   record contained no explanation as to why the contracting officer
   had  not referred the matter to the Small Business Administration
   (SBA) pursuant to  Federal Acquisition Regulations 9.104-3(e) and
   19.602-1(a)(2).    The  parties  were  directed  to  discuss  the
   possibility of proceeding with the  referral of the matter to the
   SBA and provide the Board with a status report by noon on May 18,
   1995.  
 
 
        Protester advised the  Board on  May 18  that Compuline  was
   going to proceed to cooperate with GSA in the continuation of the
   procurement  and would  withdraw its  protest  by 5:00  p.m. that
   afternoon.  Protester  did not withdraw its protest.   On May 23,
   the  Board  convened  another   conference  and  again   directed
   protester to inform the Board in writing of its intentions by the
   next day.   On  May 30,  protester  still had  not withdrawn  its
   protest.  The  Board then issued an order  directing protester to
   show cause by  noon on Wednesday, May 31, 1995,  why this protest
   should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.  
 
        At  11:50  a.m. on  May  31,  protester  filed a  notice  of
   withdrawal  of its  protest.    Respondent  poses  no  objection.
   Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 28(a), this protest is DISMISSED.
 
                                      ________________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge