___________________________________________
 
              MOTION FOR COSTS GRANTED:  October 18, 1993
              ___________________________________________
 
        
                         GSBCA 12511-C(12455-P)
 
 
                           CTA INCORPORATED,
 
                                      Intervenor,
 
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                      Respondent.
 
        I. Michael  Greenberger and J.  Bradford Wiegmann of  Shea &
   Gardner, Washington, DC, counsel for Intervenor.
 
        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.
 
        Computer Data Systems, Inc., and CBIS Federal Inc. protested
   the award of a  contract to OAO Corporation (OAO)  by the General
   Services  Administration  (GSA)  for  automatic  data  processing
   technical  support services.   The protests were  consolidated by
   the Board.   On June 21, 1993,  CTA Inc. (CTA) intervened  in the
   consolidated protests 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 intervenor CTA
   was a  prevailing party and  that reasonable costs of  filing and
   pursuing the protest should be awarded.  CTA  now moves the Board
   for award of 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.
 
        CTA  Inc. moved  for an  award of  its protest costs  in the
   amount  of  $13,745.40.     Of  this  total   amount,  $13,511.25
   represents attorney  fees and $234.15 represents  other expenses.
   We  agree  that  CTA,  as  an  intervenor  on  the  side  of  the
   protesters,  is  an  appropriate  interested  party  entitled  to
   recover its  costs.   See  Computer Consoles,  Inc., GSBCA  8450-
   C(8134-P), 86-3 BCA    19,069, 1986 BPD    103.  Respondent  does
   not dispute the reasonableness of  CTA'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
   $13,745.40, 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