_______________________________________________
 
                   GRANTED IN PART:  February 5, 1996
            _______________________________________________
 
                    GSBCA 12622-C(12521-P, 12522-P)
 
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                           Applicant,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Shelton H.  Skolnick, Judy D.  Leishman, and Amy M.  Hall of
   Skolnick & Leishman, P.C., counsel for Applicant.
 
        Richard Couch and Jeffery I. Kessler, Army Materiel Command,
   Department  of the  Army,  Alexandria,  VA;  and  Michael  Futch,
   Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, PA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and WILLIAMS.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
        In  Integrated Systems Group,Inc. v. Department of the Army,
   GSBCA 12622-C(12521-P, et al.), 94-2 BCA   26,819, 1994 BPD   65,
   we  determined that  Integrated Systems  Group,  Inc. (ISG),  the
   applicant here, had  prevailed in its protest.   In the protested
   procurement,  the  Army  needed  equipment  compatible  with  its
   installed  base of Teradyne software, but limited the competition
   to  Sun reduced instruction  set computers.   The principal issue
   was  whether respondent's  specific make and  model justification
   was too  restrictive when other  Sun computers not  using reduced
   instruction  sets were  also compatible  with  Teradyne software.
   Although  the Board  had not  granted  formal relief  to ISG,  we
   concluded  that the  Department of  the Army's settlement  of the
   protest, in the  middle of  the hearing on  the merits, on  terms
   favorable to ISG, was a  concession by respondent of the validity
   of the grounds of protest.  Integrated Systems Group, 94-2 BCA at
   133,378, 1994 BPD   65, at 3.  Therefore, we awarded ISG attorney
   fees  of $7,083,  which it  incurred in  filing and  pursuing the
   protest.  Id.
 
        ISG also seeks $5,725 in  attorney fees and expenses for the
   costs of  preparing a supplemental brief, requested by the Board,
   on allowability  of costs for  a protester's employees  under the
   fee-shifting  provisions  of  the Brooks  Act.    We requested  a
   supplemental brief in response to the holding of Sterling Federal
   Systems v. Goldin,  16 F.3d 1177 (Fed.  Cir. 1994).  The  cost of
   preparing an  application for  costs of  filing and pursuing  the
   protest is allowable  under the Brooks Act  fee shifting statute.
   Storage   Technology  Corp.,   GSBCA  9793-C(9939-P),   90-3  BCA
     23,041, 1990 BPD   150.
 
 
        Respondent  does  not  question the  reasonableness  of  the
   hourly  rate  or the  time  spent in  preparing  the supplemental
   memorandum.   We have independently reviewed  this portion of the
   application and find it reasonable both as to the hourly rate and
   amount of time spent on the activity.     
 
                                Decision
 
        The application  is GRANTED IN  PART.  Applicant  is awarded
   $5,725  for the  costs of  filing and  pursuing the  supplemental
   memorandum,  which  ISG necessarily  and  reasonably incurred  in
   filing  and pursuing the protest, including the cost application.
   This  sum 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).   
 
 
 
                                      _________________________
                                      ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                      Board Judge
 
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   _________________________          ___________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
   Board Judge                        Board Judge