GRANTED:  July 12, 1995
                                                      
 
                         GSBCA 12940-C(12849-P)
 
 
                 METROPOLITAN TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.,
 
                                           Applicant,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Jon E. Shields  of Johnson & Roche, McLean,  VA, counsel for
   Applicant.
 
        Clarence  D. Long,  III,  Office  of  the  General  Counsel,
   Department  of  the  Air  Force,  Arlington,  VA,    counsel  for
   Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DEVINE, HYATT, and GOODMAN.
 
   DEVINE, Board Judge.
 
        On  May 27,  1994,  applicant filed  a  protest against  the
   Department of  the Air Force  (Air Force) in connection  with the
   Air  Force's actions  with respect to  applicant's response  to a
   notice of intent  to acquire automated data  processing equipment
   (ADPE) published by the Air  Force in the Commerce Business Daily
   (CBD).  Applicant alleged in its protest that the Air Force erred
   in concluding  that applicant's response  to the  CBD notice  was
   non-compliant to the  stated requirements.  On June  6, 1994, the
   parties  entered into  a settlement  agreement in  which  the Air
   Force  conceded  that   it  had  rejected  applicant's   proposal
   improperly,  and  further  conceded that  applicant  was  both an
   interested party  and a prevailing party in  the subject protest,
   which was thereafter dismissed on July 21, 1994.
 
        On August 19, 1994,  applicant filed this motion  for costs,
   accompanied by a statement of legal fees, and time sheets showing
   the nature and  extent of the work  done.  The hourly  rate shown
   was $125 per hour for 14.4 hours or a total of $1,800.  Applicant
   seeks no other costs.
 
                               Discussion
 
        We find that applicant was  in fact both an interested party
   and a  prevailing  party.   We further  find both  the number  of
   professional hours expended and the hourly rate to be reasonable.
   Accordingly we grant the application for costs in its entirety.
 
                                Decision
 
        We award  the sum of  $1,800 to applicant,  representing the
   cost  of  the described  protest,  which 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).
 
                                                                   
 
                                                DONALD W. DEVINE
                                                Board Judge
 
 
 
   We Concur:
   _____________________
   _____________________
   CATHERINE B. HYATT                           ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                                  Board Judge