__________________________________________
 
               MOTION FOR COSTS GRANTED:  April 15, 1993
               __________________________________________
        
 
                         GSBCA 12271-C(12080-P)
 
 
                         HSQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Donald O. Pratt of Canterbury, Stuber, Pratt, Elder & Gooch,
   Dallas, TX, counsel for Protester.
 
        Craig R. Schmauder  and William A.  Richards, Office of  the
   Chief Counsel,  U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers, Department  of the
   Army, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and VERGILIO.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
        HSQ Technology,  Inc. (HSQ)  protested the  decision of  the
   Huntsville Division of the United States  Army Corps of Engineers
   to award a contract to Robertshaw Control Systems Division (GSBCA
   12080-P)   and  intervened  in   another  protest  of   the  same
   procurement (GSBCA 12156-P).   The contract was  for installation
   and maintenance of a utility control system for certain buildings
   located at Fort Stewart, Colorado.
 
        By   order  dated  December  23,  1992,  the  protests  were
   dismissed  without  prejudice  pursuant  to  a  stipulation   and
   agreement  filed  by the  parties.   The stipulation  stated that
   protesters  had  raised  "sufficient  questions"  concerning  the
   contracting  officer's  re-scoring of  proposals  to  warrant the
   corrective  action  of   assigning  the  acquisition  to   a  new
   contracting  officer, to whom  respondent would provide  "any and
   all   information   necessary   to   carry   out   his   or   her
   responsibilities  and  discretion."    HSQ  Technology,  Inc.  v.
   Department of the Army, GSBCA 12080-P, et al., 1992 BPD   419, at
   2  (Dec. 23,  1992).    As provided  in  the Board's  order,  the
   dismissals converted to dismissals with prejudice on December 30,
   1992.
 
 
        Pursuant to 40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C) (1988) and Rule 35, HSQ
   has now  moved for  an award  of its  protest costs.   The  total
   request  of $43,840.46 includes  $35,518.25 in attorney  fees and
   $8,322.21 in expenses.   On February 5, 1993,  respondent filed a
   response to protester's motion, which stated in part as follows:
 
                  In  the   stipulation  of   the  parties
             regarding the  above-referenced protest,  the
             Respondent  stipulated  that  HSQ Technology,
             Inc. should be considered  a prevailing party
             for  purposes of  the  Fort Stewart  protest,
             GSBCA  No.  12080-P.     The  Respondent  has
             reviewed   the   motion  submitted   by   HSQ
             Technology, Inc. regarding  its protest costs
             and  the  supporting  documentation  relating
             thereto, and the Respondent has no objections
             to the quantum of $43,840.46,  claimed by HSQ
             Technology,  Inc.   as  recoverable   protest
             costs.
 
        We  agree with respondent  that protester is  an appropriate
   party entitled to recover its protest costs pursuant to 40 U.S.C.
     759(f)(5)(C).  The bulk of protester's complaints concerned the
   original  contracting officer's  allegedly  faulty re-scoring  of
   proposals  and  respondent  has  agreed  to  assign  a  different
   contracting officer  to the procurement  to make a  new selection
   determination.  Protester has thus  prevailed in its protest.  We
   also agree  that the  amount requested  in protester's motion  is
   reasonable and documented  quite thoroughly as attorney  fees and
   taxable costs.
 
                                Decision
 
        Protester's  motion  is  GRANTED.     Protester  is  awarded
   $43,840.46,  to be  paid  in accordance  with statute,  31 U.S.C.
     1304 (1988).
 
                                      _________________________
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge
   We concur:
   _______________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
   Board Judge
   _______________________
   JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge