GSBCA 13324-P DISMISSED:  July 25, 1995
                                                          
 
 
                    GSBCA 13315-P, 13320-P, 13324-P
 
 
                       TELOS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION,
                    A DIVISION OF TELOS CORPORATION,
 
                                  and
 
                   SYSOREX INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                  and
 
                INTERNATIONAL DATA PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protesters/Intervenors,
 
                                   v.
 
           ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                       DUNN COMPUTER CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        Timothy  Sullivan, Katherine S. Nucci, and Martin R. Fischer
   of   Dykema   Gossett   PLLC,   Washington,   DC,   counsel   for
   Protester/Intervenor  Telos  Systems  Integration,  A Divison  of
   Telos Corporation.
 
        Thomas  C. Papson  and J.  Keith  Burt of  McKenna &  Cuneo,
   Washington,   DC,   counsel  for   Protester/Intervenor   Sysorex
   Information Systems, Inc.
 
        Maria  F.  Glinsmann of  Glinsmann  & Glinsmann,  Chartered,
   Gaithersburg, MD, counsel  for Protester/Intervenor International
   Data Products Corporation.
 
        Dinah  Stevens,  Roberta  M.  Echard,  and  Linda  Horowitz,
   Administrative Office  of the United  States Courts,  Washington,
   DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Edward J. Tolchin of Fettman & Tolchin, Fairfax, VA, counsel
   for Intervenor Dunn Computer Corporation.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On  July 3,  1995, International  Data  Products Corporation
   (IDP) filed a  protest against the  award of  a contract to  Dunn
   Computer Corporation by  the Administrative Office of  the United
   States  Courts.    The  procurement  at issue  seeks  to  acquire
   automatic  data  processing  hardware  and  software  to  operate
   primarily  in a networked  office environment.   IDP's grounds of
   protest are as follows: 1) Dunn's proposal failed to meet several
   minimum mandatory requirements  of the request for  proposals; 2)
   Dunn's  technical,  management,   and  cost  proposals  contained
   weaknesses and misrepresentations which respondent wrongly failed
   to consider; 3) respondent's  best value analysis was flawed;  4)
   respondent  improperly  accepted   Dunn's  unbalanced  offer;  5)
   respondent  improperly  accepted  Dunn's   offer  despite  Dunn's
   incorrect certifications; and 6) respondent's evaluation of IDP's
   cost proposal was improper.
 
        On June 26,  Telos Systems Integration, a  Division of Telos
   Corporation,  filed its own protest against the same procurement.
   On June  29, Sysorex  Information  Systems, Inc.,  filed its  own
   protest   against  the  same  procurement.    All  protests  were
   consolidated.   All protesters  are intervenors  of right  in the
   other protests.   Dunn  Computer Corporation  also intervened  in
   each protest as an intervenor of right.
 
        The Board convened a prehearing conference and established a
   schedule for further  proceedings and set a date  for the hearing
   on the  merits of these consolidated protests.  On July 21, 1995,
   protester  IDP  filed  a  motion  to  dismiss  its  protest  with
   prejudice.    Neither  the other  protesters/intervenors  nor the
   respondent  has  any  objection to  IDP's  motion.   Accordingly,
   pursuant to Rule 28(a), IDP's protest is DISMISSED.
 
 
 
                                 ______________________
                                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                 Board Judge