PROTEST COSTS GRANTED: December 23, 1994
                                                        
 
 
                         GSBCA 13123-C(13063-P)
 
 
                       DATA GENERAL CORPORATION,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Richard  J. Webber  of  Arent Fox  Kintner  Plotkin &  Kahn,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Richard  Couch and  Jeffrey I.  Kessler,  Office of  Command
   Counsel,  Army  Materiel   Command,  Department   of  the   Army,
   Alexandria, VA; and Captain Kenneth J. Tozzi, Pine Bluff Arsenal,
   Pine Bluff, AR, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and WILLIAMS.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
        On December 2,  1994, the Board dismissed a  protest by Data
   General Corporation which alleged that the Department of the Army
   had violated provisions of  statute and regulation in  awarding a
   contract for  the maintenance of  computer systems.   The parties
   had agreed  to the  dismissal after the  Army had conceded,  in a
   statement  by  the   contracting  officer,  that   the  protest's
   principal  allegations  were  correct:  the  awardee's   proposal
   "contained  a  material  misrepresentation  concerning  personnel
   available  for contract performance,"  and the agency's technical
   evaluation  "was not  conducted or  documented in a  manner which
   would support  a proper best  value source selection."   The Army
   had also agreed to  terminate the protested contract,  cancel the
   solicitation, and issue  a new solicitation which  is appropriate
   to the agency's needs.
 
        Data  General has  now asked  the  Board to  find that  Data
   General is  eligible to recover  the costs it incurred  in filing
   and pursuing its protest, and to award  the total amount of those
   costs, $2,791.70.  The Army has no objection to this request.
 
                               Discussion
 
        Whenever  the Board  "determines  that  a challenged  agency
   action violates a statute or  regulation or the conditions of any
   delegation  of  procurement authority  [regarding  automatic data
   processing  equipment]," it  may "further declare  an appropriate
   interested  party to  be  entitled  to the  costs  of filing  and
   pursuing  the protest, including reasonable attorney's fees."  40
   U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(B), (C) (1988).  In applying this statute, the
   Board has often held that --
 
             a protester whose protest has been  dismissed
             on the  basis of  a  settlement agreement  in
             which the agency acknowledges  a violation of
             statute or  regulation, and which  results in
             the  protester  receiving  substantially  the
             same  relief sought  in its  protest, can  be
             deemed a "prevailing party" entitled to award
             of protest costs.
 
   IMS  Services, Inc.  v.  Department of  the  Navy, GSBCA  12922-C
   (12830-P), 1994 BPD    204, at 2 (Sept. 30,  1994) (quoting Dun's
   Marketing  Services,   Inc.,  GSBCA   9875-C(9746-P),  89-1   BCA
     21,565, at 108,606, 1989 BPD   43, at 2).
 
        The joint stipulation  of the parties  makes plain that  the
   agency has admitted significant, highly prejudicial violations of
   law  in the conduct of  the protested procurement,  and that as a
   result of bringing the case, Data General has achieved the relief
   it  sought.     Data  General  is  consequently   an  appropriate
   interested party to recover its  costs of filing and pursuing the
   protest.
 
        The statute authorizing cost awards is designed to make each
   prevailing party whole "from pursuing  its protest so long as the
   fees  and costs  it seeks  to  recover are  reasonable."   United
   States v. Compusearch  Software Systems, 936 F.2d  564, 566 (Fed.
   Cir.  1991).   Based on  an  examination of  the costs  allegedly
   incurred by Data General, and  the documentation of them, we find
   that   the  costs   --  attorney   fees  and   litigation-related
   disbursements -- are reasonable and well documented.
 
                                Decision
 
        We consequently  GRANT Data General's application  and award
   to  this firm  the sum  of  $2,791.70, which  reflects the  costs
   incurred in  filing and pursuing the protest.   This sum shall be
   paid,  without interest,  from the permanent  indefinite judgment
   fund, 31 U.S.C.   1304 (1988).  40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C) (1988).
 
                                      _________________________
                                      STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
   _________________________          _________________________
   ANTHONY S. BORWICK                 MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
   Board Judge                        Board Judge