DISMISSED: March 14, 1994
                                                
 
 
                             GSBCA 12736-P
 
 
                           ViON CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
                                  and
 
                  COMPUTER SALES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
 
                                           Intervenor.
 
        David R. Hazelton and Philip  L. Gordon of Latham & Watkins,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Colonel Riggs L.  Wilks, Jr., Major Charles  R. Marvin, Jr.,
   Major Karl M. Ellcessor, III, and Captain Gerald P. Kohns, Office
   of the  Chief Trial Attorney, Department of  the Army, Arlington,
   VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
        Lorraine S. Cherrick of  Computer Sales International, Inc.,
   St. Louis, MO, counsel for Intervenor.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). 
 
                                 ORDER
 
        ViON  Corporation protested the  award by the  Department of
   the Army of  a contract  for the supply  of a mainframe  computer
   system.  ViON  maintained that the system offered  by the awardee
   is not  technologically "equivalent" to  the models named  in the
   solicitation  and  does not  fit  within  the  limited space,  or
   "footprint," prescribed by the document.  
 
        In  resolving cross-motions  for summary  relief  as to  the
   second  issue, the  Board  left  open  the question  whether  the
   service   area  clearance  overlaps  that  are  inherent  in  the
   awardee's system are  permissible under the guidance  provided by
   the manufacturer of the  system.  ViON Corp. v. Department of the
   Army, GSBCA 12736-P (Feb. 17, 1994),  1994 BPD   37.  The parties
   then sought  and received  analysis from the  manufacturer as  to
   that matter.
 
 
        After  receipt of the  manufacturer's view that  the service
   clearance overlaps are acceptable, ViON withdrew its protest.
 
        The protest is now DISMISSED.  Rule 28(a).
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge