___________________________________________
        
              DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: December 10, 1992
              ___________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 12099-P
 
 
                      ATLANTIC MICROSYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                        Protester,
 
                                  and
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                        Intervenor,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        Alex D. Tomaszczuk and Devon E. Hewitt, Shaw, Pittman, Potts
   & Trowbridge, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Intervenor.
 
        Clarence  D. Long,  III,  Joseph  M.  Goldstein,  Office  of
   General Counsel, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, and
   Captain  C. Wesley  Bridges,  II, Maxwell  AFB,  AL, counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On October 9,  1992, Atlantic Microsystems, Inc.  filed this
   post-award protest  contesting  actions of  the  respondent,  the
   Department of  the Air  Force.   Integrated  Systems Group,  Inc.
   intervened as of right in this protest, and filed its own protest
   concerning the same procurement, GSBCA 12111-P.
 
        A  notice in the Commerce Business Daily (CBD) expressed the
   agency's  intent  to  purchase various  items  from  a Government
   Technology Services, Inc. (GTSI) non-mandatory schedule  contract
   with the General Services Administration.  Protester responded to
   the notice.
 
        Having submitted a response to the CBD notice, offering what
   it viewed to be compatible  technology at prices lower than those
   of GTSI's schedule contract, protester contends that placement of
   an  order under  the noticed  schedule  contract was  not at  the
   lowest overall cost  to the Government, and thus in contravention
   of  statute and  regulation.   Protester also  contends that  the
   agency  erroneously  concluded   that  the  equipment  noted   in
   protester's response to the CBD notice was incompatible with  the
   agency's  existing system, particularly  given that the requested
   compatibility  was not a salient characteristic identified in the
   CBD notice.   Further, protester contends that  the documentation
   and certifications  required by the agency  improperly restricted
   the procurement to specific make and model equipment.  Intervenor
   supports protester on all counts of the protest.
 
        On December  1, 1992, the  parties submitted to the  Board a
   joint stipulation  of settlement  and  a motion  to dismiss  with
   prejudice.  The agency:
 
             acknowledges a material  violation of statute
             and regulation in that the  synopsis for this
             requirement, as  published in the  [CBD], did
             not include as  a salient characteristic  the
             requirement that certain  items identified in
             the solicitation  be validated for  use in an
             existing Sun  Microsystems, Inc.  ("Sun") ADA
             development  environment,  which  requirement
             was made known to [protester] five days after
             the deadline for receipt of the responses.
 
   Joint  Stipulation  at  1-2  (  1).    Further,  the  stipulation
   provides that  the agency's  "failure to  include the  validation
   requirement  in the synopsis as a salient characteristic resulted
   in a response from [protester]  which did not include  validation
   of the product submitted."  Id. at 2 (  2).  Moreover, the agency
   recognizes that  it did not "obtain" a justification and approval
   for other than full and open competition in this procurement, and
   that  it  failed to  ensure  full  and  open competition  of  the
   agency's  requirements.   Id. (  3,  4).   The agency  "agrees to
   terminate  this   contract  for  convenience  and   reassess  its
   requirements."  Id. (  5).
 
        Further, the  parties consider  protester to have  prevailed
   "for the purpose of obtaining an award of costs pursuant to  Rule
   35,"  and recognize  that both  the protester and  intervenor may
   request  costs pursuant  to that  rule.   Joint Stipulation  at 3
   (  8).  The  parties acknowledge, however,  that the Board  would
   determine  the amount and reasonableness of  any award under Rule
   35.  Id. (  9).  It is the Board which determines whether a party
   is "appropriate" to  recover costs, and the reasonableness of any
   amount  awarded.    40  U.S.C.    759(f)(5)(C)  (1988);  Sterling
   Federal   Systems,  Inc.   v.   National   Aeronautics  &   Space
   Administration,  GSBCA  10000-C(9835-P),  92-3  BCA   25,118,  at
   125,216-17, 1992 BPD   141, at 1.
 
                                Decision
 
        In   light  of  the  joint  stipulation  requesting  such  a
   dismissal, this protest is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  Rule 28(a).
 
 
 
                                        ________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge