_______________________________
 
             DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE:  January 4, 1999
                    _______________________________
 
                             GSBCA 12078-P
 
                    STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
 
                                           Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                       MEMOREX-TELEX CORPORATION,
 
                                           Intervenor,
 
                                  and
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
 
        David  S.  Cohen  and  Donn  R. Milton  of  Cohen  &  White,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Susan  Klimas  and Robert  A.  Riffle, Office  of  the Chief
   Counsel,  Bureau of the Public Debt,  Department of the Treasury,
   Parkersburg, WV, counsel for Respondent.
 
        William A.  Roberts, III,  Lee Curtis,  Brian A.  Darst, and
   Jerone C. Cecelic of Howrey  & Simon, Washington, DC, counsel for
   Intervenor, Memorex-Telex Corporation.
 
        John  C. Sawyer, Office of General Counsel, General Services
   Administration, Washington, DC,  counsel for Intervenor,  General
   Services Administration.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On   October  5,   1992,   Storage  Technology   Corporation
   (StorageTek) filed a protest against respondent Department of the
   Treasury, through the  Bureau of Public  Dept (BPD).   StorageTek
   alleged  that  respondent  illegally  filled  a  requirement  for
   storage  devices  through  the  GSA   nonmandatory  ADP  schedule
   contract of Memorex  Telex Corporation (Memorex Telex).   Memorex
   Telex intervened, as did the General Services Administration.  
 
        StorageTek alleged that  the item purchased  was not on  the
   schedule  contract.    The  BPD  and  Memorex  Telex  denied  the
   allegation.   They  maintained that the item was on the contract,
   and the BPD had just purchased a model with enhanced features.
 
        We  convened a prehearing  conference, and  scheduled record
   submissions pursuant  to Rule  11.   On  November 12,  StorageTek
   moved to withdraw its protest.  None of the other parties object.
 
        Pursuant to Rule 28(a)(1), this protest is DISMISSED WITHOUT
   PREJUDICE,  to be  automatically converted  to  a dismissal  with
   prejudice unless  reinstated within  ten calendar  days from  the
   date of this order.
 
 
 
                       _________________________
                       ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                       Board Judge