GRANTED IN PART: September 30, 1994 GSBCA 12923-C(12834-P) SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. James J. McCullough, Joel R. Feidelman, and Deneen J. Melander of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, 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., and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), 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 tradeoff 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 trade-off 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). SAIC later filed an application for reimbursement of the costs it incurred in filing and pursuing its protest. The application seeks an award of $235,330.69 -- $163,843.50 in attorney fees; $15,710.92 in disbursements for court reporting services, computerized legal research, photocopying, facsimile transmission, long-distance telephone calls, courier services, secretarial overtime, and related minor items; and $55,776.27 in fees charged by expert consultants who were engaged to assist in the pursuit of the protest. 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, SAIC has achieved the relief it sought. SAIC 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 attorney fees and disbursements (with the exception of expert fees) that SAIC claims it incurred, and the documentation of them, we find that the total amount of costs claimed is reasonable; that the documentation supports the total amount requested; and that the items described above fall into categories of costs that this Board has determined to be appropriate for reimbursement. The Board will address separately SAIC's request for reimbursement of the costs incurred as a result of engaging expert consultants to assist in pursuing the protest. In Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that under the statute which authorizes us to hear protests, the Board has discretion to define precisely which costs should be reimbursable. The Court noted that we have generally awarded expert fees. It instructed us to take one of two actions: make clear whether we are continuing this practice or justify a change. Id. at 1188. Specifically, the Court directed: [T]he GSBCA, in determining the allowability of particular costs, should, as it has done in the past, analyze and weigh the relevant factors, including the reasonableness and relevance of such costs to "filing and pursuing the protest," the extent to which such costs have been and are awarded by agencies and courts under other cost-shifting statutes, the promotion of efficiency in the procurement process, and the like. Id. The parties may file briefs, on or before the tenth working day following the date of this decision, addressing this matter. Decision We GRANT IN PART SAIC's application and award to this firm the sum of $179,554.42, the attorney fees and disbursements (other than expert fees) 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