_________________________________________________________
 
       GSBCA 13018-P, 13043-P, 13048-P: DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
               GSBCA 13029-P: DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
                           November 10, 1994
       _________________________________________________________
 
 
                GSBCA 13018-P, 13029-P, 13043-P, 13048-P
 
 
                           GDE SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                  and
 
                       DATA GENERAL CORPORATION,
 
                                  and
 
 
                     DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION,
 
    
                                  and
 
                        HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,
 
                                        Protesters/Intervenors,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                        Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
              INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
 
                                        Intervenor.
 
        Stuart B.  Nibley, Kevin  J. Edmundson,  Trisa J.  Thompson,
   George   Matthew  Koehl,  and  Rachel  Sens  of  Seyfarth,  Shaw,
   Fairweather &  Geraldson, Washington, DC, counsel  for Protester/
   Intervenor GDE Systems, Inc.
 
        Richard J. Webber  and John J. O'Brien of  Arent Fox Kintner
   Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, counsel  for Protester/Intervenor
   Data General Corporation.
 
        Jeffrey  H. Schneider, Raymond R. Fioravanti, and Jose Otero
   of  Epstein  Becker &  Green, P.C.,  Washington, DC,  counsel for
   Protester/Intervenor Digital Equipment Corporation.
 
        William M. Weisberg, John R.  Tolle, and William T. Welch of
   Barton,   Mountain   &    Tolle,   McLean,   VA,    counsel   for
   Protester/Intervenor Hewlett-Packard Company.
 
        George  Barclay,  Michael  J.  Ettner,  Seth Binstock,  John
   Sawyer, and Roger Waldron, Office of the General Counsel, General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Thomas P.  Humphrey, L.  Graeme Bell, III,  Devon S.  Engel,
   Todd   Hutchen,  and  Alicia  E.   Wiltz  of  Crowell  &  Moring,
   Washington,  DC, counsel  for  Intervenor International  Business
   Machines Corporation.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        On October 11,  1994, GDE  Systems, Inc.  filed its  protest
   with  the Board,  GSBCA 13018-P.   The  protests of  Data General
   Corporation, GSBCA 13029-P;  Digital Equipment Corporation, GSBCA
   13043-P; and  Hewlett-Packard Company,  GSBCA 13048-P,  followed.
   International Business  Machines Corporation (IBM)  intervened of
   right in opposition to each  protest.  Each protester  intervened
   of  right  in  at  least  one  of  the other  protests,  some  in
   opposition to the ground(s) of protest.
 
        These  protests challenge the actions of the respondent, the
   General Services Administration, reflected in amendment 23 to the
   underlying procurement.   The amendment was issued  subsequent to
   the  Board's  dismissal  of a  protest  challenging  the agency's
   selection  determination;  the  agency  terminated  that   award.
   Digital Equipment Corp. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA
   12891-P, 1994 BPD   171 (Aug. 12, 1994).
 
        On   October  17,  lacking   agency  opposition,  the  Board
   suspended the agency's applicable procurement authority:
 
        The  Board  suspended  effective  immediately,  and  to
        remain  in effect until the Board dismisses or resolves
        each  protest,  the   agency's  applicable  procurement
        authority  to  the  extent that  the  agency  shall not
        proceed with the underlying procurement or  satisfy the
        requirements encompassed by  the protested procurement.
        40 U.S.C.   759(f)(2) (1988).
 
   GDE Systems,  Inc.  v.  General  Services  Administration,  GSBCA
   13018-P, et al. (Oct. 18, 1994).
 
        On November  2, the  agency filed a  motion to  dismiss with
   prejudice  all  four  protests.    In  its   motion,  the  agency
   represents and  concludes: "Concurrent  with the  filing of  this
   motion to  dismiss, GSA is withdrawing Amendment 23. . . .  GSA's
   decision to withdraw Amendment 23  eliminates the basis for these
   protests and therefore a dismissal is appropriate."
 
 
        Given that the agency's procurement authority is  suspended,
   the  contracting officer lacks the  authority to proceed with the
   underlying  procurement.   Withdrawing  amendment  23 alters  the
   terms of the procurement and  constitutes an agency action  under
   the  procurement;  as   such,  the  "withdrawal"  is   an  action
   proceeding with  the procurement.   The "withdrawal" can  have no
   effect while the suspension is  in place.  Accordingly, as stated
   during a telephone conference with the parties on November 3, the
   Board  deems the  agency motion  to  dismiss the  protests to  be
   premised upon  a proposed  withdrawal of amendment  23; that  is,
   with the  suspension in  place, the  contracting officer has  not
   withdrawn the amendment.
 
        On November 4, Hewlett-Packard filed a statement withdrawing
   its   protest--that  is,  moving  to  dismiss  its  protest  with
   prejudice.  Rule 28(a).  On  November 4, Digital moved to dismiss
   with prejudice its protest.
 
        On November 7,  Data General filed a motion  to dismiss.  It
   notes  that  the  agency  has  agreed to  pay  Data  General  its
   reasonable attorney fees  and costs through agency  funds without
   invoking the  statutory  provisions for  award  of costs  by  the
   Board.   It  also requests  that the  dismissal shall  be without
   prejudice to reinstatement  of Data General's protest  should the
   agency again  take an action  that provides the same  grounds for
   protest as those which Data  General was pursuing in its protest.
   Data General was  pursuing two counts in its protest.   First, it
   alleges that amendment 23 alters the evaluation factors and their
   relative importance  without giving offerors  the opportunity  to
   submit proposals in response to the revised criteria.  Second, it
   maintains that by deleting an evaluation criterion the agency has
   acted arbitrarily and unfairly improved  the competitive position
   of  some offerors  while  harming  the  competitive  position  of
   others, and hence, failed to pursue full and open competition.
 
        On  November  8,  GDE  filed  a  statement  withdrawing  its
   protest--that is, moving to dismiss its protest with prejudice.
 
        No  party  has   objected  to   the  requested   dismissals.
   Accordingly, the Board  DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the  protests of
   GDE,  Digital,   and  Hewlett-Packard,   and  DISMISSES   WITHOUT
   PREJUDICE  the protest  of Data  General.  The  dismissal without
   prejudice becomes  one with prejudice  on April 16,  1995, unless
   earlier Data General timely raises the same ground(s) of protest.
   In so  dismissing the four  protests, the Board has  not resolved
   the merits of any protest issue and need not resolve  the pending
   motions for summary relief, dismissal, and the like.
 
        The  order suspending  the  agency's applicable  procurement
   authority  lapses with these  dismissals.  40  U.S.C.   759(f)(2)
   (1988); Order (Oct. 18, 1994).
 
                                        _________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge