GRANTED: September 30, 1994 GSBCA 12922-C(12830-P) IMS SERVICES, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. Keith L. Baker, Sean P. Morgan, and Darin R. Bartram of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Ellen D. Washington, M. Elizabeth Hancock, David P. Andross, Thomas L. Frankfurt, Stirling Adams, and Lis B. Young, Information Technology Acquisition Center, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE, and VERGILIO. DANIELS, Board Judge. Two offerors, IMS Services, Inc. (IMS), and Science Applications International Corporation, protested the award by the Department of the Navy to CTA Incorporated of a contract for information systems and automated data processing support services. The protests contained numerous allegations, which we grouped into four general categories. According to the protesters, the Navy's discussions with the various offerors were inadequate, unequal, and misleading; the agency's scoring of parts of various technical proposals was unreasonable; the agency weighed technical factors in a manner which was different from what was prescribed in the solicitation; and the cost/technical trade-off and ensuing source selection decision were unreasonable. Each protester maintained that but for these errors, its proposal would have been judged to be most advantageous to the Government. As the hearing on the merits of the protests was about to begin, the parties informed the Board that they had agreed to settle the cases. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the protests with prejudice to reinstatement. They also submitted a joint stipulation which recites the following agreement: The Navy admits that it made errors in evaluating and scoring CTA's technical proposal, such that the score given that proposal was inflated. The Navy further admits that as a result of the inflated CTA score, the agency's cost/technical tradeoff was not valid and the source selection decision lacked a rational basis and was not in accordance with the solicitation's criteria. The solicitation did not prohibit multiple awards. The parties agree that given proper scoring of technical proposals, the most advantageous course of action for the Navy is to award contracts to both protesters as well as CTA. The agency will make these awards. The Board granted the joint motion and dismissed the protests. IMS Services, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 12830-P, et al., 1994 BPD 138 (July 6, 1994). IMS later filed an application for reimbursement of the attorney fees and costs it incurred in filing and pursuing its protest. The application seeks an award of $101,734.06 -- $89,143.75 in attorney fees and $12,590.31 in disbursements for court reporting services, computerized legal research, photocopying and telecopying of documents, postage, courier and overnight delivery services, secretarial overtime, and related minor items. We afforded the Department of the Navy an opportunity to respond. After ignoring two deadlines for filing its comments, the agency ultimately told us that it would not reply. Discussion Whenever the Board "determines that a challenged agency action violates a statute or regulation or the conditions of any delegation of procurement authority [regarding automatic data processing equipment]," it may "further declare an appropriate interested party to be entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorney's fees." 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(B), (C) (1988). In applying this statute, the Board has held that -- a protester whose protest has been dismissed on the basis of a settlement agreement in which the agency acknowledges a violation of statute or regulation, and which results in the protester receiving substantially the same relief sought in its protest, can be deemed a "prevailing party" entitled to award of protest costs. Dun's Marketing Services, Inc., GSBCA 9875-C(9746-P), 89-1 BCA 21,565, at 108,606, 1989 BPD 43, at 2; see also Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760-61 (1987); EG&G Florida, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 12318-C(12204-P), 94-1 BCA 26,560, 1993 BPD 329; CBIS Federal, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12516-C(12461-P), 94-1 BCA 26,496, 1993 BPD 292. The joint stipulation of the parties makes plain that the agency has admitted significant, highly prejudicial violations of law in the conduct of the protested procurement, and that as a result of bringing the case, IMS has achieved the relief it sought. IMS is consequently an appropriate interested party to recover its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. The statute authorizing cost awards is designed to make each prevailing party whole "from pursuing its protest so long as the fees and costs it seeks to recover are reasonable." United States v. Compusearch Software Systems, 936 F.2d 564, 566 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Based on an examination of the costs allegedly incurred by IMS, and the documentation of them, we find that the costs are reasonable, well documented, and fall into categories of costs that this Board has determined to be appropriate for reimbursement. Decision We consequently GRANT IMS's application and award to this firm the sum of $101,734.06, which reflects the costs incurred in filing and pursuing the protest. 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). _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge