DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: February 10, 1993 
                                                             
 
                             GSBCA 12265-P 
 
                          PETER M. COONS, CO.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
 
                                                Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
               DATA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,
 
                                                Intervenor.
 
 
        James  J.  McCullough and  Anne B.  Perry, of  Fried, Frank,
   Harris,   Shriver  &  Jacobson,   Washington,  DC,   counsel  for
   Protester.
 
        Robert  A.  Lincoln,  Office  of  the  Counsel,  Library  of
   Congress, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Cyrus E.  Phillips, IV,  Robert B.  Bowytz,  and Kenneth  D.
   Brody,  of  Keck,  Mahin  & Cate,  Washington,  DC,  counsel  for
   Intervenor.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
                                 ORDER
 
        This protest was  filed with the Board on  January 19, 1993,
   by Peter  M.  Coons, Co.  (PMC).   PMC protests  the  award of  a
   contract  by the  Library  of Congress  for  the maintenance  and
   operation  of an  automated  comprehensive  mailing list  system.
   Protester contends  that  the  solicitation  contained  ambiguous
   specifications not apparent  prior to the time for  submission of
   proposals.    Protester  also  challenges  the  accuracy  of  the
   evaluation  of proposals and,  in particular, complains regarding
   respondent's  apparent objection to  the use of  a subcontractor.
   Finally, protester contends that the contracting officer erred in
   permitting PMC to submit a  best and final offer after concluding
   the initial offer was technically insufficient.  
 
 
        Data  Management Associates,  Incorporated,  the awardee  in
   this procurement, has intervened in this case as of right.  
 
        On February  5,  protester advised  the  Board that  it  was
   withdrawing its protest.  Counsel for intervenor and counsel  for
   respondent have both advised the Board by phone that they have no
   objection to the dismissal of this protest.  
 
        Accordingly,  pursuant  to  Rule   28(a),  this  protest  is
   dismissed without prejudice.  The dismissal shall become one with
   prejudice ten days from the date of this order unless, before the
   expiration  of that  period, one  of  the parties  moves for  the
   reinstatement  of this  case.   The Board's  order of  January 25
   suspending respondent's delegation  of procurement authority,  as
   applicable  to  the  procurement which  is  the  subject  of this
   protest, lapses by its own terms.  
 
 
                                           ____________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge