DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: June 8, 1995 GSBCA 13273-P PULSAR DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent, and INTELLISYS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION/ CONCEPT AUTOMATION, INC. JOINT VENTURE, Intervenor. Jonathan T. Cain and Devon E. Hewitt of Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, McLean, VA, counsel for Protester. David M. Cohen, Richard E. Rice, and Stephanie M. Jackson, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Elizabeth Nagy and Joseph Carroll, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Richard J. Conway, William M. Rosen, and Robert J. Moss of Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). ORDER Pulsar Data Systems, Inc., protested that in conducting a procurement for local area network equipment, computers, peripheral equipment, and software, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Prisons violated statute and regulation in numerous ways. According to the protest complaint, the agency misevaluated elements of Pulsar's technical and cost proposals, and the cost/technical trade-off which was based in part on those misevaluations was consequently irrational. The protest was filed on May 12, 1995. On May 31, after written discovery requests had been sent but before they had been answered, the parties informed the Board that they had settled the case in principle. On June 6, they filed a joint stipulation of settlement and a joint motion to dismiss the protest. The motion is to dismiss the case without prejudice and to incorporate the stipulation into the dismissal. The stipulation provides that the agency will reexamine its evaluation of the best and final offers, notify Pulsar of the results of the reexamination, and pay Pulsar $8,500 to cover attorney fees, costs, and expenses incurred in pursuit of the protest. We incorporate the remainder of the stipulation into this order by reference. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-355, requires that: Any agreement that provides for the dismissal of a protest and involves a direct or indirect expenditure of appropriated funds shall be submitted to the board and shall be made a part of the public record (subject to any protective order considered appropriate by the board) before dismissal of the protest. If a Federal agency is a party to a settlement agreement, the submission of the agreement to the board shall include a memorandum, signed by the contracting officer concerned, that describes in detail the procurement, the grounds for protest, the Federal Government's position regarding the grounds for protest, the terms of the settlement, and the agency's position regarding the propriety of the award or proposed award of the contract at issue in the protest. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(D) (as amended by Pub. L. No. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3243, 3293 ( 1436); 60 Fed. Reg. 17023 (Apr. 4, 1995) (provision applies to all proceedings filed on or after May 5, 1995); see also 48 CFR 6101.28(d) (as amended by 60 Fed. Reg. 17023, 17027 (Apr. 4, 1995) (Board rule of procedure incorporating statutory requirement). Because in submitting the joint stipulation of settlement, the agency did not include the required contracting officer's memorandum, the Board did not dismiss the protest upon receipt of the stipulation and motion. Instead, we asked that an appropriate memorandum be filed. Filing of the memorandum occurred on June 8. The protest is now DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge