____________________________________________ DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: December 8, 1994 ____________________________________________ GSBCA 13058-P SYMBIOTIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Protester, and SCIENCE SYSTEMS AND APPLICATIONS, INC., Intervenor, v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent, and SM SYSTEMS & RESEARCH CORPORATION, Intervenor. Janice M. Bellucci, Rockville, MD, counsel for Protester. Anoop N. Mehta, Vice President, Finance, Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Lanham, MD, appearing for Intervenor Science Systems and Applications, Inc. Jerry A. Walz and Kenneth A. Lechter, Office of General Counsel, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Durvasula S. Sastri and Shamala J. Bhat of Law Offices of Sastri & Bhat, Silver Spring, MD, counsel for Intervenor SM Systems & Research Corporation. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. ORDER On October 31, 1994, protester Symbiotic Technologies, Inc. (Symbiotic) filed the instant protest challenging the award of a contract by the United States Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to intervenor SM Systems & Research Corporation (SMSRC) under solicitation number 52-EANE-4-00044 for automatic data processing equipment. Protester's first amendment to the protest was filed on November 28, 1994. On December 7, 1994, respondent, with the consent of protester, filed a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice, terminate the rights of intervenor, or dismiss intervention for lack of standing, stating: The Protester and Respondent move to dismiss the above captioned matter with prejudice and request that any rights of the intervenor [Science Systems and Applications, Inc.] not survive this dismissal or that the intervention be dismissed for lack of standing on the part of the intervenor and represent to the Board as follows: 1. That the Protester and Respondent have reached agreement as to all issues raised by the Protest, and in consideration therefor the Protester and the Respondent desire that this case be dismissed with prejudice. 2. That this dismissal does not involve any change in the award of this contract to SMSRC, nor any other matters which would adversely affect the interests of Intervenor. 3. That the Intervenor does not stand in line for award as indicated by the documents found in the Rule 4 at Tabs 16 and 17, and therefore its intervention should be dismissed. 4. That the Intervenor in his notice of intervention raised no new grounds for protest, raised no protest grounds itself, requested no affirmative relief, nor did it request a suspension of the delegation of procurement authority. Your movants therefore aver that the recent case of Atlis Federal Services, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Human Services, GSBCA No. 12959[-P], October 15, 1994, would not apply as, in that case, the Intervenor raised the protest ground of cost technical trade-off analysis in its intervention. As indicated here, no protest ground was alleged, nor did Intervenor indicate its adoption of Protester's protest grounds. 5. That the Intervenor would be untimely as to any protest issues as its notice to intervene was filed on November 10, 1994, said notice indicating at 7 that it had actual notice of the award to SMSRC on October 24, 1994. 6. That the Intervenor notified the Respondent's counsel on December 5, 1994 . . . that it did not intend to file any documents relative to Protester's Amended Complaint. 7. That this Motion has been reviewed and approved as to form and substance by counsel for Protester. Wherefore your Movants request that this matter be dismissed with prejudice, and that all rights of the intervenor be terminated or that the intervention be dismissed for lack of standing, and that the suspension of the delegation of procurement authority be terminated. On December 7, 1994, intervenor Science Systems & Applications, Inc. (SSAI) filed a motion of dismissal by SSAI, stating: 1. Pursuant to Rule 28(a), Science Systems and Applications, Inc. ("SSAI") as an intervenor of right respectfully moves to dismiss with prejudice its intervention in the protest filed on October 31, 1994 by Symbiotic Technologies, Inc. ("Protester") with the GSA Board of Contract Appeals (No. [13058-P]) concerning the intended award of a contract to SM Systems and Research Corporation by the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Eastern Administrative Support Center, 200 World Trade Center, Norfolk, Virginia ("Respondent") pursuant to Solicitation No. 50-EANE-4- 00044, dated March 23, 1994. 2. The Respondent has agreed to allow SSAI to review and receive redacted version of documents related to the above matter. Accordingly, intervenor SSAI's request to withdraw as intervenor of right is GRANTED. Protester and respondent's joint motion to dismiss this protest with prejudice is GRANTED. This protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Rule 28(a).[foot #] 1 The suspension of respondent's delegation of procurement authority lapses by its terms. _____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 58 Fed. Reg. 69,263 (1993) (to be codified at 48 CFR 6101.28)