_________________________________________
 
                MOTIONS FOR RELIEF FROM DECISION AND FOR
               FURTHER PROCEEDINGS DENIED: July 26, 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   24,  1995,  the  Board  dismissed   for  lack  of
   jurisdiction a protest submitted by TRESP Associates, Inc.  TRESP
   Associates, Inc. v. Department of Energy, GSBCA 13341-P (July 24,
   1995).   TRESP earlier had  filed at  least one protest  with the
   General Accounting Office (GAO) involving the same procurement as
   that underlying  this action  at the Board.   Hence,  statute and
   Board rules preclude  TRESP from filing a protest  with the Board
   involving the procurement.
 
        On July 25, TRESP filed what it  styles a Rule 33 motion for
   relief  from decision  pending  appeal  and  motion  for  further
   proceedings.  TRESP requests that  the Board "preserve the status
   quo" during  its appeal of the underlying decision.  It asks that
   the Board:
 
 
        (1)  suspend the  Board's  decision dismissing  TRESP's
        protest; and (2)  at the earliest possible  moment, but
        in any event  not later than July 26,  1995, hold[] the
        hearing  on   suspension  of  the   General  Service[s]
        Administration's Delegation of Procurement Authority to
        the  Department of Energy  on the captioned procurement
        as provided  by Board Rules 7(b)(2)(viii)  and 19(a)(2)
        and 40  U.S.C.   759(f)(3)(A)(iii)  (West Supp.  1995);
        and (3) immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing,
        enter[]   a  suspension   of  the  GSA   Delegation  of
        Procurement Authority.
 
   In support, TRESP notes that it is in the process of preparing an
   emergency/expedited appeal.   It further claims  that it will  be
   irreparably  harmed if  performance  of the  underlying  contract
   commences.
 
        TRESP has failed to raise a valid basis for  relief from the
   underlying decision.   TRESP  fails to heed  the language  of the
   Board's  jurisdictional  statute.   As  noted  in  the underlying
   decision, the statute prohibits a  party from filing a protest at
   the GAO and  then at this Board "with respect  to a procurement."
   40  U.S.C.   759(f)(1)  (West Supp.  1995).   Hence, by  the very
   terms of the statute, TRESP is not a proper protester  to request
   a suspension of the agency's applicable delegation of procurement
   authority.  TRESP seeks to invoke provisions inapplicable to it.
 
        Further, under statute, should the Board suspend an agency's
   applicable delegation of procurement authority, the suspension is
   to be  of finite duration--lasting  until the Board  resolves the
   protest; that  is,  within 65  calendar days  of protest  filing,
   unless the period is expressly extended by the Board's  Chairman.
   40  U.S.C.   759(f)(3),  (4)(B).   TRESP, as the  incumbent whose
   award  expires on  July 31,  has not  suggested how  its proposed
   indefinite  suspension  of  the  agency's applicable  procurement
   authority would be consistent with the mandates of statute.
 
        The Board DENIES  the motions for  relief from the  decision
   and for further proceedings.
 
                                        _________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge
   We concur:
 
 
   _________________________            _________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                     CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge                          Board Judge