___________________________________________
 
              MOTION FOR COSTS GRANTED:  October 18, 1993
              ___________________________________________
 
        
                         GSBCA 12516-C(12461-P)
 
 
                           CBIS FEDERAL INC.,
 
                                      Protester,
 
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                      Respondent.
 
        Joseph J. Petrillo, Michael A. Hordell,  Eric L. Lipman, and
   Jessica C.  Abrahams of Petrillo  & Hordell, Washington,  DC; and
   Susan  Warshaw Ebner of  CBIS Federal Inc.,  Fairfax, VA, 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.
 
        CBIS Federal Inc.  (CBIS) protested the award  of a contract
   to OAO Corporation  (OAO) by the General  Services Administration
   (GSA)  for automatic data  processing technical support services.
   The Board consolidated  CBIS's protest with a  protest previously
   filed by Computer  Data Systems,  Inc.  A  short time later,  CTA
   Inc. and ARC Professional Services Group, Inc., 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  the protesters
   and intervenors were prevailing parties and that reasonable costs
   of filing and pursuing the protests should  be awarded.  CBIS 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,  1992, CBIS  filed  its motion  for payment  of
   protests  costs  in  the  amount  of  $27,525.42.    This  amount
   represents  $25,550.00 for outside attorney fees, $957.00 for in-
   house counsel costs, and $1,018.42  for other expenses.  We agree
   that CBIS 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
   $27,525.42, 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