___________________________________________
 
              MOTION FOR COSTS GRANTED:  October 18, 1993
              ___________________________________________
        
 
                         GSBCA 12515-C(12455-P)
 
 
                      COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                      Protester,
 
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                      Respondent.
 
        Marcia G. Madsen, Thomas F. Williamson, Brian W. Craver, and
   David F.  Dowd of  Morgan, Lewis &  Bockius, Washington,  DC; and
   Mary Ann Mayhew and Charles  B. Machion of Computer Data Systems,
   Inc., Rockville, MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        Seth Binstock, Pamela J. Reiner, and Tenley  A. Carp, Office
   of  General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, HENDLEY, and HYATT.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
        On  June 11,  1993,  Computer  Data  Systems,  Inc.  (CDSI),
   protested the award of a contract to OAO Corporation (OAO) by the
   General  Services   Administration  (GSA)   for  automatic   data
   processing support  services.   CBIS Federal  Inc.  also filed  a
   protest of the award and the Board consolidated the two protests.
   A short time later, CTA Inc. and ARC Professional Services Group,
   Inc.,  intervened on the  side of  the protesters.   On  July 17,
   1993, GSA terminated  the contract with OAO for  convenience as a
   result of GSA's admitted violations of law.
     
        By  order  dated  June  28, 1993,  the  Board  dismissed the
   consolidated protests  pursuant to a  stipulation agreement filed
   by the parties.  Computer  Data Systems, Inc. v. General Services
   Administration, GSBCA  12455-P et al.,  1993 BPD   179  (June 30,
   1993).  The Joint Stipulation of Dismissal provided in part:
 
 
        The Parties  jointly stipulate that  GSA evaluated  the
        offers  in a  manner inconsistent  with the  evaluation
        criteria  during the  competition for the  Contract and
        that this constitutes a violation of the Competition in
        Contracting Act.   In addition, GSA stipulates  that it
        (i)  failed to conduct  meaningful discussions with the
        offerors during  the competition for the  Contract; and
        (ii) provided information which reasonably led offerors
        to believe that if changes were made in their rates for
        skill categories included in the requirement, that such
        changes would improve the offeror's  chances for award,
        while  in actuality,  the offeror's  chances  for award
        were negatively  affected as  a result  of making  such
        changes.  
   The parties  also agreed in  the stipulation that  the protesters
   and  intervenors were prevailing  parties and that  protest costs
   should  be  awarded.   CDSI now  moves the  Board to  award those
   costs.
 
        Under Rule 35 and 40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C) (1988), the Board
   may award protest costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, to
   an "appropriate interested party" when  an agency has violated  a
   statute,  regulation,  or  the  conditions  of  a  delegation  of
   procurement  authority.  An appropriate interested party has been
   defined as a "prevailing party" or "one that has succeeded on any
   significant issue in  the litigation  that achieves  some of  the
   benefit it  sought in bringing  suit."   Bedford Computer  Corp.,
   GSBCA 9837-C(9742-P),  89-2 BCA    21,827, at  109,811, 1989  BPD
     121, at 3.  
 
        On July 30, 1993, CDSI moved for protest costs in the amount
   of $34,963.26.  On September 12, 1993, CDSI filed a supplement to
   its motion which  raised the total amount to $39,526.28.   Of the
   total amount  claimed,  $39,013.57 represents  attorney fees  and
   $512.71  represents other  expenses.   We agree  that CDSI  is an
   appropriate  interested  party  entitled  to  recover  its  costs
   pursuant   to  Rule  35  and  40  U.S.C.    759(f)(5)(C)  (1988).
   Respondent does  not dispute  the  reasonableness of  protester's
   costs.  We have  examined the itemized expenses and find  them to
   be  reasonable and well  documented as attorney  fees and taxable
   costs.
 
                                Decision
 
        Protester's  motion  is  GRANTED.    Protester  is   awarded
   $39,526.28, to  be paid in  accordance with statute, 31  U.S.C.  
   1304 (1988).
 
                                      ______________________
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ______________________
   JAMES W. HENDLEY
   Board Judge
 
 
 
   ______________________
   CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge