_______________________________________________
 
              DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  September 2, 1994
            _______________________________________________
 
 
 
                             GSBCA 12949-P 
 
 
                            COMDISCO, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                  DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY,
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
 
                                  and
 
 
                     SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondents,
 
                                  and
 
 
                           TROY SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
        James D. Bachman, Ron R. Hutchinson, and  Alexander T. Bakos
   of Doyle & Bachman, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Douglas  G.  White,  Office  of  General  Counsel,   Defense
   Information Systems Agency, Scott Air Force Base, IL, counsel for
   Respondent Defense Information Systems Agency.
 
        John  E.  Cornell, John  C.  Sawyer, and  Rebecca  L. Kehoe,
   Office  of General Counsel,  Personal Property  Division, General
   Services Administration,  Washington, DC, counsel  for Respondent
   General Services Administration.
 
        John W.  Klein, Office  of General  Counsel, Small  Business
   Administration,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for Respondent  Small
   Business Administration.
 
        Paralee White, William  F. Savarino, and Laurel  A. Heneghan
   of Cohen & White, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and NEILL.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        This protest, filed  by Comdisco, Inc. (Comdisco)  on August
   29, 1994, challenges the issuance of a task order for "hot sight"
   disaster   recovery  services  by  an  activity  of  the  Defense
   Information Systems  Agency (DISA).   The task order was   issued
   under  a contract  awarded to  Troy Systems,  Inc. (Troy)  by the
   Small  Business Administration  (SBA) on  behalf  of the  General
   Services Administration (GSA).   Comdisco contends that  the task
   order in question is outside the scope  of Troy's contract.  Troy
   has intervened in this protest as an interested party.  
 
        On September 2,  Comdisco, DISA, GSA, and SBA  filed a joint
   stipulation  and motion to  dismiss this protest  with prejudice.
   They advised the  Board that the task order in  question has been
   terminated for the  convenience of the Government.   Furthermore,
   they have agreed that the "hot site" services sought by  the task
   order  and the  locations  at  which these  services  were to  be
   provided are beyond the contract scope.    
 
        Counsel for Troy have filed an objection to the joint motion
   to  dismiss.   They  contend  that  the  "hot site"  services  in
   question  are not  outside  the  scope of  the  contract.   They,
   therefore, oppose a motion to dismiss which is based on the joint
   stipulation  that  these  services are  not  within  the contract
   scope.  
 
        We  note intervenor's objection.  Nevertheless, we grant the
   motion to dismiss.   We have previously ruled  that an intervenor
   may not block a settlement  between a protester and a respondent.
   Vanguard Tech. Corp.,  GSBCA 10127-P, 89-3 BCA   22,111, 1989 BPD
     209, recon. denied, 89-3 BCA   22,116, 1989 BPD   220.  If Troy
   believes the contracting officer's determination to terminate the
   task order was improper,  it is, of  course, free to protest  the
   action  in its own right.   We see  no reason, however,   why the
   present proceeding should not be dismissed in view of the absence
   of any continued controversy between protester and the respondent
   agencies. 
 
        The joint motion is granted.  This protest is DISMISSED WITH
   PREJUDICE.       
 
 
 
                                                ____________________
                                                EDWIN B. NEILL
                                                Board Judge 
 
   We concur:
 
 
   _______________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
   Board Judge 
 
 
   _______________________
   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
   Board Judge