DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  March 12, 1993
                                                             
 
                             GSBCA 12314-P
 
 
                    CEDAR CLIFF SYSTEMS CORPORATION
                                                               
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
                         UNITED STATES COURTS,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                       CONCEPT AUTOMATION, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
 
        Hilary  S.  Cairnie  and  Leticia E.  Flores  of  Dickstein,
   Shapiro & Morin, Vienna, VA, counsel for Protester.  
 
        Dinah Stevens,  David E.  Weiskopf, Marilyn  J. Holmes,  and
   Roberta  M. Echard, Office of the General Counsel, Administrative
   Office of the United  States Courts, Washington, DC, counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
        Jed L. Babbin,  Charlotte Rothenberg Rosen, Lori  Beth Feld,
   and  William H. Butterfield  of McGuire, Woods,  Battle & Boothe,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.  
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This  protest was filed  by Cedar Cliff  Systems Corporation
   (Cedar) on February  23, 1993.   Cedar protested the  award of  a
   contract  for   automatic  data   processing  equipment  by   the
   Administrative Offices  of the  United States  Courts to  Concept
   Automation, Inc.  (CAI).  CAI has  intervened in this case  as an
   intervenor of right.  
 
        On March  12, Cedar  requested that  we dismiss  its protest
   with prejudice.  The other parties to this protest have indicated
   to  the  Board that  they  have  no  objection to  the  requested
   dismissal.  
 
        Pursuant to Rule 28(a), therefore, this protest is DISMISSED
   WITH PREJUDICE.  The Board's  order granting the request of Cedar
   that we  suspend respondent's delegation of procurement authority
   expires in accordance with its terms.  
 
                                 __________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge