GRANTED IN PART: February 24, 1993 GSBCA 12229-C(12117-P) LAPTOPS FALLS CHURCH, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent. Ross W. Dembling of Kurz Koch Doland & Dembling, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. George M. Beasley, III, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, and Jack Cordes, Jr., Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and WILLIAMS. PARKER, Board Judge. On October 14, 1992, Laptops Falls Church, Inc., protester, filed a complaint with the Board challenging the terms of Solicitation No. RFP 6178. The Department of Justice's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), respondent, issued this solicitation on June 15, 1992, to purchase commercial-grade laptop computers, and the agency on October 5, 1992, amended the solicitation and extended the closing date to October 16, 1992. Complaint, GSBCA 12117-P, 11. After receiving a joint stipulation from the parties, we dismissed the protest on December 15, 1992. The settlement agreement, which the parties incorporated into their stipulation, included the following provision: [a]lthough respondent does not concede that all of Laptops' allegations in the protest have merit, it concedes that Laptops is a "prevailing party" for the purpose of an award of costs pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 759 and Rules 35-36 of the Rules of the Board. The stipulation itself also included a provision whereby respondent agreed to "issue an amendment to the solicitation that incorporates the changes outlined in the Appendix," and another stating that "Laptops will file a motion with the Board for an award of costs, including attorneys' fees, pursuant to Rule 35." On December 21, 1992, we docketed protester's motion to recover protest costs totalling $46,407.94, which included $44,449 in attorney's fees and $1,958.94 in disbursements by outside counsel, for work performed between July 21 and December 9, 1992. Application of Laptops Falls Church, Inc. for an Award of Protest Costs Pursuant to GSBCA Rule 35 ("Application"), Exhibit C. Discussion We agree with the parties that protester is an "appropriate interested party" entitled to recover its protest costs pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). Not only did the parties stipulate that protester was a "prevailing party," but respondent also clarified certain technical requirements and cost evaluation methods in the solicitation, as protester had requested. Compare Complaint, GSBCA 12117-P, 17-39, with Application, Exhibit B, Appendix A, 4-6. Respondent, however, has raised three objections to protester's cost motion. First, it argues that protester cannot recover costs it incurred in July, August, and September of 1992, since protester did not file the instant protest until October 14, 1992. Second, respondent contends that protester cannot recover fees incurred relating to issues on which it did not prevail. Third, respondent argues that protester is requesting an unreasonable amount overall. As to respondent's first objection, we agree that the Board lacks authority to award costs incurred before protester began preparing to file its complaint with the Board. The Brooks Act authorizes the Board to award prevailing parties the costs of "filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorney's fees." 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C)(i). Protester's costs of attempting to negotiate an informal settlement during July, August, and September of 1992, well before the protest was filed, were neither for "filing" nor "pursuing" its protest. These costs were akin to the costs that an offeror might incur in pursuing an agency protest, costs which we have consistently declined to award. React Corp., GSBCA 9530-C(9456-P), 88-3 BCA 21,026, at 106,210, 1988 BPD 161, at 4; accord, Zyga Corporation, GSBCA 10154-C(10059-P), 90-1 BCA 22,376, at 112,432, 1989 BPD 310, at 2; Rocky Mountain Trading Company - Systems Division, GSBCA 9791-C(9712-P), 89-3 BCA 22,085, at 111,069, 1989 BPD 200, at 4. Protester is eligible to receive only the costs it incurred after respondent issued the amendment of the solicitation on October 5, 1992, where the notations on the billing sheets indicate that preparation of a Board protest began. Although we have denied protester part of the costs requested, we nonetheless reject respondent's contention that we should deny protester compensation for time spent litigating "losing" protest counts. Although we may deny costs that a protester incurred to pursue collateral, easily severable protest issues, Digital Equipment Corporation, 9285-C(9131-P), 89-3 BCA 22,181, at 111,617, 1989 BPD 248, at 7, we award full costs to protesters receiving substantial relief on the basis of a complaint alleging factually-intertwined Government errors. Grumman Data Systems Corp. v. Department of the Air Force, GSBCA 11799-C(11635-P), slip op. at 6 (Jan. 11, 1993); Old Stone Leasing Corp. v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 10747-C(10613-P), 1992 BPD 331, at 6 (Nov. 4, 1992); RMTC/Microware, GSBCA 10580- C(10060-P), 92-1 BCA 24,530, at 122,402, 1991 BPD 274, at 4- 5. Here, the thrust of protester's complaint was that most areas of the solicitation were insufficiently precise, and respondent substantially revised the solicitation by adding detail concerning technical specifications and price evaluation methods as a result of the protest. Application, Appendix A. Finally, we find that both protester's attorneys' fees and disbursement requests incurred in the filing and pursuing of the protest once proceedings here commenced, totalling $32,710.38, are reasonable in amount. Decision Protester's motion to recover its costs of pursuing this protest is GRANTED IN PART. The sum of $32,710.38 is to be paid, without interest, from the permanent indefinite judgment fund, 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988). 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C). _____________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: _____________________________ _____________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge Board Judge