DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE:  March 8, 1993
                                                             
 
                         GSBCA 12292-P, 12314-P
 
 
                    UNISYS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                  and
 
                       CEDAR CLIFF SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                               
                                           Protesters/Intervenors,
 
                                   v.
 
                      ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
                         UNITED STATES COURTS,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                       CONCEPT AUTOMATION, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
 
        Marie N. Doland of Hazel & Thomas, Falls Church, VA; Anne H.
   Warner,  Susan D.   Falkson   and  Janine   Huebner   of   Unisys
   Corporation, McLean, VA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Hilary  S.  Cairnie  and  Leticia E.  Flores  of  Dickstein,
   Shapiro  & Morin, Vienna, VA,  counsel for Intervenor Cedar Cliff
   Systems, Inc. 
 
        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 Concept Automation, Inc.
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
 
                                 ORDER
 
        On   February  8,  1993,  Unisys  Government  Systems,  Inc.
   (Unisys) filed a protest (GSBCA 12292-P) regarding the award of a
   contract  for   automatic  data   processing  equipment  by   the
   Administrative Offices of the United States Courts.  The contract
   was awarded to  Concept Automation, Inc. (CAI).   On February 19,
   Unisys amended its initial complaint 
 
        The   Unisys   protest,   as   amended,   was   subsequently
   consolidated with another protest involving the same procurement,
   namely, the  protest of  Cedar Cliff  Systems Corporation,  GSBCA
   12314-P.  
 
        On  March 4,  Unisys 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 dismissal of this
   Unisys protest.  
 
        Accordingly,  pursuant to Rule 28(a), the protest of Unisys,
   GSBCA 12292-P,  is dismissed with  prejudice.  The  Board's order
   granting  the  request  of Unisys  that  we  suspend respondent's
   delegation  of   procurement  authority  as  applicable   to  the
   procurement which is the subject of the Unisys protest expires by
   its terms.  
 
 
                                                __________________
                                                EDWIN B. NEILL
                                                Board Judge