___________________________________________
 
              DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: September 7, 1995
              ___________________________________________
 
 
                    GSBCA 13391-P, 13395-P, 13405-P
 
 
                   AARON B. FLOYD ENTERPRISES, INC.,
 
                  COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                  and
 
                        HCI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
 
                                        Protesters, 
 
                                  and
 
                           SETA CORPORATION,
 
                                        Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                  DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        Merritt Lee Murry and J.  Michael Slocum of Slocum, Boddie &
   Murry,  Falls Church,  VA, counsel  for Protester Aaron  B. Floyd
   Enterprises, Inc.
 
        Daisy  G.  Wallace,  President and  CEO,  and  Guy Brunetto,
   Executive  Vice President,  Computer  Technology Services,  Inc.,
   Rockville, MD, appearing for Protester.
 
        Rodney K. Martin, President and CEO, HCI Technologies, Inc.,
   Reston, VA, appearing for Protester.
 
        William A. Roberts, III, Lee P. Curtis, and David R. Francis
   of Howrey & Simon, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
        Virginia  G. Farrier and Capt. Nancy Sumption, Legal Counsel
   for Procurement  & Logistics, Defense Information Systems Agency,
   Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On August  29 and 31,  and September 5,  1995, respectively,
   Aaron B.  Floyd Enterprises, Inc.  (13991-P), Computer Technology
   Services, Inc.  (13995-P), and HCI Technologies,  Inc. (13405-P),
   each   filed  a  protest  concerning  the  determination  by  the
   respondent,  the  Defense  Information  Systems  Agency,  to  not
   include  it  in the  competitive  range  of  a procurement.    On
   September 1, SETA Corporation  filed a notice of intervention  of
   right  in the  first  two protests,  contending  that the  agency
   improperly did not include it in the competitive range.
 
        The   agency   has   set   aside   the   competitive   range
   determinations  at issue.   The  protesters  and intervenor  have
   requested  that  the  protests   be  dismissed  with   prejudice.
   Accordingly, the Board  need not reach the merits  of the issues;
   the  Board DISMISSES  WITH PREJUDICE the  protests.   Rule 28(a).
   The Board's  previously-entered  order  suspending  the  agency's
   applicable procurement authority lapses by its terms.  Although a
   protective order has  been issued and access  granted thereunder,
   no protected  information has been  or will be reviewed  by those
   with access.
 
                                        ________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge