_______________________
 
                       GRANTED:  October 5, 1992
                        _______________________
 
                         GSBCA 11924-C(11832-P)
 
                 INTEGRATION TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        David  S.  Cohen  and  Donn  R. Milton  of  Cohen  &  White,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Protester.
 
        Craig  E.  Hodge  and  Vera  Meza,  Army  Materiel  Command,
   Department of the Army, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, AND HYATT.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
                               Background
 
        This  matter involves  an application on  July 13,  1992, by
   Integration  Technologies  Group,  Inc. (ITG)  for  its  costs of
   filing and  pursuing its  protest against  the Department  of the
   Army, respondent.  ITG seeks $14,325.66 under the authority of 40
   U.S.C.     759(f)(5)(C)  (1988).    In  the  underlying  protest,
   respondent stipulated  that ITG  is the prevailing  party and  is
   entitled  to  the reasonable  costs  of filing  and  pursuing the
   protest.  In response to  ITG's application, respondent stated it
   had no  objection to the amount sought by  ITG.  We have reviewed
   the schedule of  expenses and attorney fees submitted  by ITG and
   find  them reasonable.   We  award ITG  the full  amount sought--
   $14,325.66  
 
        On May 8,  1992, ITG protested the Department  of the Army's
   award  to the Digital  Equipment Corporation (DEC)  of a contract
   for  maintenance for a variety  of equipment manufactured by DEC.
   The  equipment is  located at  respondent's  White Sands  Missile
   Range.  
 
        In  its second  amended  complaint,  protester alleged  that
   respondent, in violation  of statute and regulation,  awarded the
   contract  to  DEC  when  DEC  had taken  exception  to  essential
   requirements,   that   respondent   had   erroneously   evaluated
   protester's proposal  as unacceptable, and  that the  procurement
   was a disguised sole-source procurement for DEC's benefit.
 
 
        The Board  established a  pre-hearing schedule  and set  the
   hearing to commence on June 15.  On June 9, the Board received  a
   joint  motion to  dismiss  the protest  without  prejudice and  a
   stipulation  of settlement.    Under  the settlement,  respondent
   canceled the contract award to DEC, revised its competitive range
   determination to include protester, and amended the RFP  to allow
   for  supply of diagnostic software from a  firm other than DEC if
   such software  was available.   In  the stipulation, the  parties
   recognized  ITG  as  the   prevailing  party,  acknowledged   its
   eligibility for its costs of filing and pursuing the protest, and
   further agreed  that ITG should be reimbursed  for the reasonable
   costs of filing  and pursuing the protest.  On June 15, the Board
   dismissed the protest.   Integration Technologies Group,  Inc. v.
   Department of the Army, GSBCA 11832-P, 1992 BPD   160 (1992).  
 
        On  July 13,  ITG filed  its  application for  the costs  of
   filing and pursuing  the protest seeking $14,325.66.  That figure
   comprises  $13,345.50 in attorney  fees and $980.60  in expenses.
   Respondent  expressed no  objection to  the award.     Our review
   establishes that the fees and expenses sought are  reasonable.   
 
 
                                Decision
 
        Pursuant  to 40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C) (1988), ITG is awarded
   $14,325.66.
 
 
                                 _________________________
                                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                 Board Judge
 
 
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   _________________________
   EDWIN B. NEILL
   Board Judge
   _________________________
   CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge