ABCD _______________________________ GRANTED: July 21, 1992 _______________________________ GSBCA 11770-C(11728-P) GENERAL ANALYTICS CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. Gerard F. Doyle and Anne B. Perry of Doyle & Bachman, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Vera Meza and Craig E. Hodge, Army Materiel Command, Department of the Army, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and HYATT. BORWICK, Board Judge Background By petition filed on March 24, 1992, applicant General Analytics Corporation (GAC) seeks $13,833.98 in attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party in General Analytics Corp. v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 11728-P, 1992 BPD 66 (Feb. 28, 1992). Respondent objects to the award of costs. It maintains that GAC was not a prevailing party, that the protest concerned matters of contract administration, and that GAC was not an interested party. We conclude that GAC was a prevailing party and award the full amount claimed.[foot #] 1 In General Analytics Corp., GAC protested the award of a contract for computer maintenance services, alleging that the awardee lacked the necessary diagnostics and equipment to perform the contract. About sixteen days after the filing of the protest, respondent terminated for default the awarded contract, and represented that it would obtain maintenance from the original equipment manufacturer, pending a decision on how to ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Respondent expresses no objection to the reasonableness of the amount sought. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- fill the requirements. General Analytics Corp. v. Department of the Army, 1992 BPD 66, at 1. Discussion Statute provides that the Board may declare "an appropriate interested party" to be entitled to costs of filing and pursuing a protest. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). We have held that the term appropriate interested party means a "prevailing party." NCR Comten, Inc., GSBCA 8229, 86-2 BCA 18,822, at 94,852, 1986 BPD 24, at 10. Respondent's argument that applicant was not a prevailing party is not persuasive. Respondent voluntarily gave protester much of the relief it sought--cancellation of the award to an awardee whose proposal did not meet minimum mandatory requirements. That the Board did not grant the protest after the parties fought it out is irrelevant. A party need not obtain formal relief in order to prevail; all it need do is to establish a clear causal relationship between the litigation and its outcome. North American Automated Systems Co., Inc., GSBCA 7976- P, 85-3 BCA 18,281, at 91,753, 1985 BPD 39, at 2. Here, it is evident that the filing of the protest caused respondent to terminate for default the contract to the awardee. Under similar circumstances, we have deemed the protester to be a prevailing party. Cf. Data/Ware Development Inc., GSBCA 9945-C(9792-P), 90-2 BCA 22,742, at 114,155, 1990 BPD 47, at 5 (protester deemed prevailing party where respondent settled protest by terminating awarded contract after test showed failure to meet requirements and respondent then resolicited). We have independently examined the applicant's schedules attached to its motion and conclude that the claimed attorney's fees and expenses are reasonable. Decision Protester is entitled to $13,833.98 as the cost of filing and pursuing the protest. The award is to be paid, without interest, in accordance with the procedure provided by 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988). Respondent's delegation of procurement authority is revised to require it to reimburse the judgment fund for this award. Julie Research Laboratories, Inc., GSBCA No. 9075-P(8919- P), 89-1 BCA 21,213, 1988 BPD 208, appeal dismissed, 881 F.2d 1067 (Fed. Cir. 1989).[foot #] 2 ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 The panel chairman concurs in that portion of the opinion regarding reimbursement because of his view that precedent dictates the result. The panel chairman does not agree that the Board has the authority to revise delegations of procurement authority to require reimbursement of the judgment (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- ________________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge We concur: _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge _________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 (...continued) fund. See my concurring opinion in Communications Resource Group ___ _____________________________ Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11038-C(10998-P), ________________________________________ 1992 BPD 29 (Jan. 30, 1992).