____________________________________
 
                 ORDER LIFTING STAY; UNDERLYING OPINION
                   NO LONGER PROTECTED: June 2, 1995
                 _____________________________________
 
 
                    GSBCA 10985-P, 10989-P, 10991-P
 
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                  and
 
                     FEDERAL COMPUTER CORPORATION,
 
                                  and
 
                 GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                           Protesters/Intervenors,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                    ZENITH DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        Stephen  L. Mills, VP Marketing of Integrated Systems Group,
   Inc., Vienna, VA, appearing for Protester.
 
        Robert E. Gregg, Thomas R. Folk, and Donna J. Kraus of Hazel
   &  Thomas, Falls  Church, VA;  and  David S.  Kovach, of  Federal
   Computer Corporation,  Falls Church, VA,  counsel for  Protester/
   Intervenor.
 
        Richard J. Conway,  William M. Rosen, and Hilary  S. Cairnie
   of  Dickstein, Shapiro  &  Morin,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for
   Protester/Intervenor.
 
        Mark  Wiener,  Ellen  Washington,   and  Diane  D.   Hayden,
   Department  of  the  Navy,  Automatic  Data Processing  Selection
   Office, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Laura  K. Kennedy, Timothy F.  Haley, Sandra Lee Fenske, and
   Rachel  A. Sens  of  Seyfarth,  Shaw,  Fairweather  &  Geraldson,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
        Mark  J.  Stechschulte  of SMS  Data  Products  Group, Inc.,
   Reston, VA, counsel for SMS Data Products Group, Inc.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and VERGILIO.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        On January 29, 1991, the  Board issued, subject to the terms
   and conditions  of a  protective order, an  opinion in  the three
   underlying  protests.   The  opinion contains  information  which
   offerors  had submitted with protective legend in their proposals
   as well  as other information  which the Board received  into the
   record under protective order.  However, given the limited nature
   of  such  information  in  the  opinion and  the  status  of  the
   procurement, the Board inquired of  the parties to the protest if
   any  desired continued  protection  of the  opinion.   The  Board
   viewed the  information  in the  opinion  as no  longer  properly
   protected  or  confidential  to  the  extent  that  it  would  be
   released.   No  party sought  continued protection.   The opinion
   contains  information relating to SMS Data Products Group, Inc.--
   an offeror in  the procurement, but not  a party to  the protest.
   The Board  notified SMS of  the Board's intention to  release the
   opinion  to   the  public   and  requested   that  SMS   identify
   information, if any,  which it desired to keep  protected, and to
   provide any  bases to  support non-disclosure,  should it  desire
   protection.
 
        Having  been  granted  limited access  under  the  terms and
   conditions of the protective order,  counsel for SMS reviewed the
   opinion.  SMS  sought continued protection  of those portions  of
   the  opinion which it contended  reveal (1) some  of its best and
   final  offer prices; (2) portions of SMS' technical proposal; (3)
   "SMS' bidding strategy  for [the procurement] includes but is not
   limited  to  the  delicate balance  between  price  and technical
   superiority";  (4) SMS' relative standing in the competition; and
   (5) information which if combined with public information can  be
   used  to calculate  information  regarding  SMS,  its  offer,  or
   information  SMS is entitled to protect.   SMS noted that it "has
   not and will not grant  the government permission to disclose the
   information outside the Government."  SMS explanation of proposed
   redactions (Feb. 4, 1991).
 
        Having  determined that continued  protection of the opinion
   was inappropriate,  on  February 13,  1991, the  Board issued  an
   order stating that the opinion  issued on January 29, 1991, would
   be released from the terms of the protective order  at 4:00 p.m.,
   February 14.   Integrated Systems Group, Inc.,  GSBCA 10985-P, et
   al.,  1991 BPD   36.   On February  14, SMS filed a  motion for a
   stay of that  order, noting that it intended to file a motion for
   full Board consideration, or alternatively panel reconsideration,
   of the  determination to  release to the  public portions  of the
   January 29 opinion.  The Board granted a stay to remain in effect
   until further  order of the Board.  Id.,  1991 BPD   37 (Feb. 14,
   1991).  Thereafter,  SMS filed a  motion for reconsideration  and
   alternatively full Board consideration.
 
 
        Upon further inquiry from the  Board, SMS stated in a letter
   dated   September  29,  1994,  that  it   continues  to  view  as
   inappropriate  on  legal  and equitable  grounds  the  release of
   information it submitted with its proposal marked as proprietary.
   However, "SMS withdraws all its  objections to the release of the
   opinion"  and  requests  that  the Board  vacate  the  opinion of
   February 13, 1991.
 
        In light of  the withdrawal of objections by  SMS, the Board
   releases from the  terms and conditions  of the protective  order
   the opinion  issued on January  29, 1991.   The Board  denies the
   request of SMS to vacate the opinion of February 13.
 
                                ____________________________
                                JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                Board Judge
   We concur:
   ___________________________  ____________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS           ANTHONY S. BORWICK
   Board Judge                  Board Judge