_____________________
 
                         GRANTED: May 16, 1995
                         _____________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 13261-P
 
 
                DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
 
                                        Protester, 
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        Cyrus  E.  Phillips,  IV,  and  Christopher  M.  Johnson  of
   Kilcullen,  Wilson and  Kilcullen,  Washington,  DC, counsel  for
   Protester.
 
        Craig E. Hodge  and LTC Ronald K. Heuer,  U.S. Army Materiel
   Command, Alexandria,  VA; and  David H. Scott,  U.S. Army  Test &
   Evaluation  Command,  Aberdeen  Proving Ground,  MD,  counsel for
   Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), VERGILIO, and GOODMAN.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        On May 3, 1995, Dimensions International, Incorporated filed
   this pre-award protest challenging actions of the respondent, the
   Department  of  the  Army,  U.S.  Army  Materiel  Command.    The
   protester raises two grounds of  protest.  First, it asserts that
   the  agency  has  failed  to  obtain  a  specific  delegation  of
   procurement authority  from the  General Services  Administration
   (GSA), such that the agency may not proceed with the procurement.
   In  support,  the  protester references  regulation  (the Federal
   Information Resources Management Regulation), 41 CFR 201-20.305-3
   (1994), and  case law, CACI, Inc.  v. Stone, 990  F.2d 1233, 1237
   (Fed.  Cir.  1993).   Second,  the  protester maintains  that  in
   removing  its proposal from the competitive range the contracting
   officer's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and without a basis
   in fact or in law.  The protester maintains that the removal from
   the   competitive  range  was  contrary   to  the  terms  of  the
   solicitation and  violated regulations  (the Federal  Acquisition
   Regulation), 48 CFR 15.610(c)(3) and (5) (1994).
 
        On  May  15,   the  parties  submitted  a   stipulation  for
   settlement which provides, in part:
 
             1.   The Respondent agrees  that it will reinstate
        the  Protester's  proposal  to  the competitive  range.
        Although the Respondent finds the proposal  technically
        unacceptable, it  is capable of  being made  acceptable
        after  discussions  and  an  opportunity  to  submit  a
        revised competitive proposal;
 
             2.   The Respondent  will replace two of the three
        members   from  the   existing   team  of   evaluators,
        reconstituting  the team  to  evaluate the  Protester's
        revised competitive proposal.
 
             3.   The Parties  agree to granting  protest GSBCA
        13261-P.
 
             4.   The  Respondent will not  oppose an  award to
        the Protester of  its fees and  costs relating to  this
        protest.
 
             WHEREFORE,  the   Respondent  and   the  Protester
        respectfully move that this protest be granted pursuant
        to the foregoing terms and agreement.
 
                                Decision
 
        The  terms of  the stipulation contain  an admission  by the
   agency  that  it  improperly eliminated  the  protester  from the
   competitive  range.   Thus, the  Board  GRANTS count  two of  the
   protest.  Neither party seeks to pursue count one of the protest.
 
        The Board, not the parties, is entrusted with fashioning the
   relief  (revising,   revoking,  or   suspending  the   applicable
   procurement authority) in a protest in which the Board finds that
   a challenged agency  action violates statute, regulation,  or the
   conditions of  a delegation of procurement authority.   40 U.S.C.
     759(f)(5)(B)  (1988).   The relief  proposed by the  parties is
   adopted by the Board.   Should the dollar value of the  automatic
   data   processing   (ADP)  resources   (or   federal  information
   processing resources) exceed the limits of the applicable blanket
   delegation  of procurement authority,  the agency is  required to
   obtain  the necessary  authority from  GSA, so  as to  proceed in
   accordance with statute  and regulation.  The  previously entered
   suspension  of  applicable  procurement authority  lapses  by its
   terms.  40 U.S.C.   759(f)(2) (1988); Order (May 10, 1995).
 
                                        ________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge
   We concur:
 
 
   ____________________________         ___________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                          Board Judge