_________________________________________________
 
           DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION: July 24, 1995
           _________________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 13341-P
 
 
                        TRESP ASSOCIATES, INC.,
 
                                        Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
 
                                        Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                           PRAGMATICS, INC.,
 
                                        Intervenor.
 
        Timothy B. Mills, Christy L. Gherlein,  and Lynn T. Burleson
   of Patton Boggs, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Wendy  E. Ojeda,  Mary D.  Copeland, and  Nicole  E. Porter,
   Office of  Chief Counsel,  Department of  Energy, Oak  Ridge, TN,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
        J. Patrick McMahon  and Thomas K. David of  McMahon & David,
   Vienna, VA, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, HYATT, and VERGILIO.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        On July  17,  1995, TRESP  Associates, Inc.  filed with  the
   Board what it styles a protest.  In this post-award action, TRESP
   maintains that the respondent, the Department of Energy, violated
   statute and  regulation in  its conduct  of discussions,  and its
   evaluations and source  selection.  TRESP has filed  at least one
   protest  with the General  Accounting Office (GAO)  involving the
   same  procurement.   Pragmatics,  Inc.,  as  the  awardee, is  an
   intervenor of right.
 
        In this same procurement, at the pre-award stage, this Board
   dismissed for lack  of jurisdiction a  "protest" filed by  TRESP,
   stating:
 
             Statute prohibits  a party  from filing a  protest
        with the GAO  and then filing a protest  with the Board
        involving the same procurement.   40 U.S.C.   759(f)(1)
        (1988).     Board  rules  define  a  protester  as  "an
        interested party who files a protest with the Board and
        who has not filed a protest with the GAO concerning the
        same  procurement."  Rule  1(b)(12).   In light  of its
        election earlier to  file a protest at the  GAO and the
        unambiguous language of the statute, TRESP is unable to
        file at this  Board a protest on  the same procurement.
        The  rationale  which  precludes  TRESP  from  being an
        intervenor  of right  and pursuing  its  own issues  of
        protest at  this Board  applies  equally to  precluding
        TRESP from pursuing  this protest.   Columbia  Services
        Group,  Inc. v.  Department of  Energy,  GSBCA 12999-P,
        [94-3  BCA   27,256,] 1994  BPD   223 (Oct.  18, 1994);
        motion for reconsideration denied[,  95-1 BCA   27,345,
        1994 BPD    242]; motion for  full Board  consideration
        denied[, 1994 BPD   255] (Nov. 2, 1994).
 
   TRESP  Associates, Inc. v.  Department of Energy,  GSBCA 13060-P,
   95-1 BCA   27,322, 1994 BPD   252.
 
        TRESP has filed at least  one protest with the GAO involving
   this same procurement.  Regarding  the protests filed by TRESP at
   the  GAO and  this matter, there  exist distinctions  between the
   subject matter  (exclusion  from  the  competitive  range  versus
   actions  affecting  the source  selection) and  timing (pre-award
   versus  post-award).   Nevertheless,  the  distinctions  are  not
   relevant  for statutory purposes;  the same procurement underlies
   the TRESP  matters at  the GAO and  at this  Board.   The statute
   precludes TRESP from filing and  pursuing at this Board a protest
   involving  the same procurement.   40 U.S.C.    759(f)(1) (1988);
   TRESP;  GeoMet Data  Services, Inc.  v.  Department of  Commerce,
   GSBCA 12007-P, 93-1 BCA   25,536, 1992 BPD   263.
 
        Accordingly,  the Board DISMISSES  FOR LACK  OF JURISDICTION
   this matter.
 
 
 
                                        _________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge
   We concur:
 
 
 
   _________________________            _________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                     CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge                          Board Judge