Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
                        _______________________
 
                         GRANTED: March 16, 1998
                        _______________________
 
 
                       GSBCA 12967-C(12891-P)-REM
 
                     DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION,
 
                                        Applicant,
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                        Respondent.
        Jeffrey H. Schneider  of Jeffrey H. Schneider  & Associates,
   Silver Spring, MD, counsel for Applicant.
 
        Michael  D.  Tully,  Office   of  General  Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges PARKER, VERGILIO, and DeGRAFF.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
        Digital  Equipment  Corporation   filed  an  application  to
   recover its costs of filing  and pursuing a protest it had  filed
   in  June  1994.   The  Board  denied  the application.    Digital
   Equipment  Corp. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12967-
   C(12891-P), 96-2 BCA    28,356, 1996 BPD   68.  The United States
   Court  of Appeals  for the Federal  Circuit reversed  the Board's
   denial of costs to Digital and remanded the case to the Board for
   a determination of the total allowable costs, because the parties
   had not stipulated as to the  amount of Digital's costs.  Digital
   Equipment Corp. v.  General Services Administration, 119  F.3d 16
   (Fed. Cir. 1997) (table), 16 FPD   85.
 
        Upon remand to  the Board, the parties  have stipulated that
   Digital should be paid a total  of $304,000 out of the  permanent
   indefinite judgment fund as full payment of Digital's pursuit  of
   the protest and its  application for costs.  The parties move the
   Board,  pursuant to Rule  136(e), to grant  Digital's application
   and award the agreed-upon amount.   The request under Rule 136(e)
   is consistent  with the  dictates of the  Federal Circuit  in the
   companion case  to this cost  application, GDE  Systems, Inc.  v.
   General Services  Administration, 119  F.3d 16  (Fed. Cir.  1997)
   (table), 16 FPD   84,  in which the Court remanded the  matter to
   this Board with the direction that the Board award that applicant
   $285,000,  in accordance  with the  stipulation  of the  parties.
   However,  that decision is  not precedential.   The  precedent at
   this Board  requires that  the Board  determine that  any awarded
   amount is  reasonable and  reflects allowable  costs.   Automated
   Systems  & Programming, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA
   13147-C  (13049-P) (July 12,  1996); PacifiCorp Capital,  Inc. v.
   Department  of the  Army,  GSBCA  10830-C(10714-P),  92-3  BCA   
   25,117, 1992 BPD   145.
 
        The  record supports the request that $304,000 were expended
   as reasonable  and  allowable costs  in filing  and pursuing  the
   underlying  protest and cost application.  Accordingly, the Board
   GRANTS  the application.   The payment is to  be made pursuant to
   statute.  40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C) (1988).
 
 
 
                                        _________________________
                                        JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                        Board Judge
   We concur:
 
 
   ____________________________         ___________________________
   ROBERT W. PARKER                     MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
   Board Judge                          Board Judge