_______________________________________________ GRANTED IN PART: November 21, 1994 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 13005-C(12977-P) UNGERMANN-BASS NETWORKS, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. Gerard F. Doyle of Doyle & Bachman, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Eric A. Lile, Office of Counsel, Naval Supply Systems Command, Arlington, VA; Lucie-Anne Dionne Thomas, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Newport, RI, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and DEGRAFF. BORWICK, Board Judge. On September 16, 1994, Ungermann-Bass Networks, Inc., (protester) filed a protest against the Department of the Navy, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division (respondent). Protester alleged that the Navy's award to Xyplex, Inc., violated the request for proposals' requirement for thirty-one management processor modules with flash memory cards; that the respondent conducted inadequate discussions; and that respondent improperly permitted Xyplex to revise its proposed quantities and unit prices for the management module processor module and flash memory card. On September 22, 1994, protester and respondent filed a joint motion to dismiss the protest. Respondent agreed to issue a stop work order to Xyplex and to amend the solicitation to re- open discussions and to establish a date when best and final offers (BAFOs) would be due. On September 26, 1994, the Board dismissed the protest. Ungerman-Bass Networks, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 12977-P, 1994 BPD 192, (Sep. 26, 1994). On October 6, 1994, protester filed a Motion for Award of Protest Costs, seeking $10,566 for attorney fees and expenses incurred in filing and pursuing the protest. On November 8, 1994, protester and respondent submitted to the Board a document entitled Joint Supplement to Motion for Award of Protest Costs. Respondent agrees that protester is a prevailing party, and protester and respondent move for an award of $10,000 as the protester's reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Discussion If the Board determines that a challenged agency action violates statute, regulation, or conditions, of a delegation of procurement authority, it may declare an appropriate interested party to be entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorney fees. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(B), (C) (1988). An appropriate interested party, for the purposes of this provision, is a party which prevails in the case, by succeeding on a significant issue and achieving the benefit it sought in bringing the suit. Bedford Computer Corp., GSBCA 9837-C(9742-P), 89-2 BCA 21,827, at 109,811, 1989 BPD 121, at 3. We have not read the statute to require a full hearing and decision on the merits before we may award costs. Rather, we may award costs if the record, such as a stipulation by the parties, demonstrates that the respondent has violated a material statute, regulation or condition of a DPA and has provided some benefit to the protester, materially altering its position in favor of full and open competition. IMS Services, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 12922-C(12830-P) (Sept. 30. 1994), and cases cited therein; Bedford. Here, the parties have stipulated that protester is a prevailing party. We agree. The corrective action by respondent, and the stipulation of the parties are concessions that respondent violated statute and regulation in proceeding with the award to Xyplex. Moreover, respondent gave significant relief to protester. Integrated Systems Group v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 12622-C(12521-P) 94-2 BCA 26,819, 1994 BPD 65. Protester and respondent have stipulated to $10,000 as the reasonable award of the costs of filing and pursuing the protest. We have examined the schedule of attorney fees and expenses protester attached to its motion and have determined that both the amount of time spent on the protest and the rate charged were reasonable. On October 13, 1994, the President signed into law the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), Public Law 103-355. Section 1435 of that act amends 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) to limit (except for small business concerns) the hourly rates at which attorney fees may be reimbursed by Board order. An award of $10,000 in this case would be based on hourly rates in excess of the statutory hourly cap of this recent Act. We have concluded, however, that the act takes effect on the earlier of October 1, 1995, or such date as may be prescribed in regulation. The Board has not issued regulations establishing an effective date for Section 1435. Sterling Federal Systems Inc. v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GSBCA 10601-C(10381-P), slip op. at 3 (Oct. 20, 1994). The cap established by FASA has no effect on this case. Decision We GRANT the parties' Joint Supplement to Motion for Award of Protest Costs. Protester is entitled to $10,000 as the costs of filing and pursuing the protest. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). 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: ____________________ _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge Board Judge