May 15, 1995
                                                
 
 
                             GSBCA 13262-P
 
 
                          FORTRAN CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                  and
 
                           MITEL CORPORATION,
 
                                           Permissive Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        Victor  G. Klingelhofer  and  Laurel A.  Hockey  of Cohen  &
   White, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        James  P. Gallatin,  Jr.,  and Peter  J. Barrett  of Popham,
   Haik,  Schnobrich   &  Kaufman,   Washington,  DC,   counsel  for
   Permissive Intervenor.
 
        Dennis J. Gallagher,  Office of Legal Adviser  for Buildings
   and  Acquisitions, Department of State, Washington, DC; and Cyrus
   E.  Phillips,  IV,  Christopher M.  Johnson,  and  Christopher H.
   Jensen  of  Kilcullen,  Wilson  and  Kilcullen,  Washington,  DC,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
        David V.  Anthony  and  Vincent  S.  Antonacci  of  Piper  &
   Marbury, Washington, DC;  and Michael W. Clancy of GTE Government
   Systems Corporation, Chantilly, VA, counsel for Intervenor.
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). 
 
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This protest challenges the  Department of State's exclusion
   from the  competitive range, in  a procurement for the  supply of
   operating  telephone  systems  at  American embassies  and  posts
   around the world, of a proposal submitted by Fortran Corporation.
 
        After  a prehearing  conference, and  the  filing of  agency
   motions to dismiss the protest  as untimely filed and for summary
   relief, but prior to the inception of discovery, Fortran withdrew
   the protest and asked that the case be dismissed.
 
        At  the protester's  request, the  case is  DISMISSED.   The
   Board's  order suspending  the  agency's  authority  to  award  a
   contract while the protest is pending lapses by its terms.  Order
   (May 8, 1995); 40 U.S.C.   759(f)(2)(B) (1988).
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge