GRANTED: March 4, 1994
                                                    
 
 
                         GSBCA 12297-C(12195-P)
 
 
                      COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Marcia  G. Madsen,  Brian  W. Craver,  Don  W. Blevins,  and
   Gerald T. Nielsen  of Morgan,  Lewis &  Bockius, Washington,  DC,
   counsel for Protester.
 
        Pamela  Reiner, Seth Binstock,  and Kurt Summers,  Office of
   the General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges NEILL, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
        On February 11, 1993, protester, Computer Data Systems, Inc.
   (CDSI),  filed a  motion for  costs  incurred in  connection with
   pursuing  its protest docketed  as GSBCA 12195-P.   Computer Data
   Systems, Inc. v. General Services  Administration, GSBCA 12195-P,
   1993 BPD   17  (Jan. 12, 1993).  In its  protest, CDSI challenged
   the award of  an automated data processing  facilities management
   contract by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the GSA
   Pacific  Zone  to  Applied  Technology  Associates,  Inc.  (ATA).
   Protester alleged  that ATA's  price was  unreasonably low  based
   upon an erroneous total dollar value of the ATA proposal.
 
        In  response  to the  protest,  GSA canceled  the  award and
   admitted that its evaluation of  proposals was improper.  GSA and
   CDSI filed a joint motion to dismiss the protest stating in part:
 
        GSA  and  CDSI   stipulate  to  the  following.     The
        evaluation conducted by GSA took into account technical
        subfactors  that were not clearly identified as part of
        the  evaluation   criteria.    GSA   and  CDSI  further
        stipulate that  the above fact constitutes  a violation
        of the requirements  of the Competition  in Contracting
        Act of 1984 . . . and applicable regulations.   GSA and
        CDSI  also   stipulate  that  GSA  has  terminated  the
        contract  of ATA under  this solicitation and  GSA will
        revise  the  solicitation  to  accurately  reflect  its
        minimum requirements.   All offerors  in the originally
        determined  competitive   range  will   be  given   the
        opportunity to submit revised proposals.
 
   1993 BPD   17,  at 2.  That protest has since been dismissed with
   prejudice.
 
        The parties settled the  cost case and on January 27,  1994,
   filed an offer  of award pursuant to  Board Rule 36(e) requesting
   that the Board  issue a  judgment in  the amount  of $95,000  and
   dismiss this  claim with  prejudice subject  to reinstatement  if
   full payment is not made.  The offer of award stated in part:
 
        3.   CDSI filed a motion for  award of protest costs in
        the  amount of $122,415.07  on February 11, 1993.   The
        Board docketed this motion  as GSBCA No. 12297-C(12195-
        P).
 
        4.   . . . GSA and . . . CDSI agree to the dismissal of
        Docket No. 12297-C(12195-P) with prejudice, subject  to
        reinstatement  only if the Board declines to adopt this
        stipulation  by decision or if the payment described in
          5, infra, is not made; and
 
        5.   The  government  shall  agree  to   pay  from  the
        Permanent Indefinite  Judgement Fund  to Computer  Data
        Systems, Inc. a total of $95,000.00.  This total amount
        shall be paid without interest.
 
        6.   If  the Board .  . . issues  a decision consistent
        with this  offer [of  award], CDSI  and GSA agree  that
        they  will not seek reconsideration of, or relief from,
        the  Board's decision,  and they  will  not appeal  the
        Board's decision in this matter.
 
                                Decision
 
        Given  GSA's own admission and subsequent corrective action,
   we  conclude that  the agency  action  challenged in  the protest
   violated  statute and regulation.   We have  analyzed protester's
   submission in support of its  motion for costs and have concluded
   that  the costs it  seeks including attorney  fees are reasonable
   and reimbursable.   We, thus, GRANT protester's  motion for costs
   in the  amount of $95,000.   These costs  shall be  paid, without
   interest,  from the permanent indefinite judgment fund, 31 U.S.C.
     1304 (1988).  40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C) (1988).
 
 
 
 
                                      ____________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ____________________________       ____________________________
   EDWIN B. NEILL                     JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge                        Board Judge