GRANTED:  March 8, 1993
                                                  
        
 
                     GSBCA 12278-C(12156-P/12157-P)
 
 
                    WILLIAMS ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                                 Respondent,
 
        Raymond  R. Fioravanti  of Epstein,  Becker  & Green,  P.C.,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Craig R.  Schmauder and William  A. Richards, Office  of the
   Chief  Counsel, U.S.  Army Corps  of  Engineers, Washington,  DC,
   counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and VERGILIO.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
        On  November  2,  1992,  Williams  Electric  Company,  Inc.,
   protester, challenged  the decision  of the  U.S.  Army Corps  of
   Engineers,  respondent, to  award two  contracts  to install  and
   maintain heating and cooling equipment.   By order dated December
   23, 1992, the Board dismissed the two protests, GSBCA 12156-P and
   GSBCA  12157-P, without  prejudice pursuant  to two  stipulations
   that  the parties  submitted.    Both  stipulations  stated  that
   protester  had  raised  "sufficient  questions"  concerning   the
   contracting  officer's  re-scoring  of proposals  to  warrant the
   corrective  action  of  assigning  both  acquisitions  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);  HSQ  Technology, Inc. v.  Department of  the
   Army, GSBCA 12166-P(12079-P)  et al., 1992 BPD   420,  at 2 (Dec.
   23, 1992).   As provided for in  the Board's orders,  the initial
   dismissals converted to dismissals with prejudice on December 30,
   1992.
 
        Pursuant to  40 U.S.C.    759(f)(5)(C) (1988)  and Rule  35,
   protester moved on January  22, 1993, for an award of its protest
   costs  totalling $109,725.88.   Protester  stated  that this  sum
   included  $103,253.38   in  attorney's  fees   and  $6,472.50  in
   litigation  costs, and the billing sheets accompanying the motion
   listed costs  exceeding $130,000.   Motion  for Award  of Protest
   Costs,  Exhibit  3.   On  January  29,  1993, protester  filed  a
   supplemental motion in  which it claimed an  additional $3,049.46
   in costs earlier billed in error to another account.  On February
   19,  1993, the  parties filed  a stipulation,  which provided  as
   follows:
 
        Having previously stipulated  that the Protester should
        be considered an appropriate  prevailing and interested
        party for  purposes of  the above-referenced  protests,
        and  having thoroughly reviewed the Motion for Award of
        Protest  Costs and  Supplemental  Motion  for Award  of
        Protest  Costs and  Supplemental  Motion for  Award  of
        Protest  Costs   submitted  by  Williams,   along  with
        Williams'  supporting  documentation,   the  Respondent
        agrees  that protest costs in the amount of $105,620.34
        claimed by Williams are reasonable.  
 
        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   procurements.    Protester   thus
   prevailed  in its protests. In addition,  the amount requested in
   the  stipulation is reasonable and documented quite thoroughly as
   attorney's fees and taxable costs in the attached billing sheets.
    
 
                                Decision
 
        The  Board GRANTS protester's  motion to recover $105,620.34
   in attorney's fees and costs incurred  to litigate the underlying
   protests, to be paid in accordance with statute, 31 U.S.C.   1304
   (1988).  40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C).
 
 
 
                                      ___________________________
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
   ___________________________        ___________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge                        Board Judge