MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DECISION GRANTED: January 18, 1995 GSBCA 13023-P-R, 13024-P-R INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Stephen L. Mills, VP Marketing of Integrated Systems Group, Inc., Vienna, VA, appearing for Protester. William A. Goss and Robert E. Norman, Office of Regional Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and GOODMAN. DANIELS, Board Judge. The Department of the Treasury, respondent, moves for relief from the Board's decision granting protests by Integrated Systems Group, Inc., against the issuance by the department's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of two delivery orders for computer workstations and associated equipment. Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 13023-P, et al., 1994 BPD 272 (Nov. 22, 1994). The Board found, based on a representation by agency counsel, that at the time the protests were filed, the equipment covered by the delivery orders had been delivered to the IRS facility in question, and some of it had been installed, but none of it had been accepted. We also noted, again based on counsel's representation, that after receiving the protests, the agency issued a stop work order which precluded acceptance and agreed to keep the order in place as long as the protests remained before the Board. 1994 BPD 272, at 5 (Finding 9). Statute provides that when the Board orders relief in a protest, "the affected contract shall be presumed valid as to all goods or services delivered and accepted under the contract before the suspension, revocation, or revision of . . . procurement authority." 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(6)(B) (1988). We considered this law in fashioning relief in the protests. Relying on the representations that the IRS had not accepted any of the equipment it had ordered, we directed the agency to rescind the delivery orders and take further corrective action. 1994 BPD 272, at 7. The motion for relief from decision and its accompanying exhibits make clear that counsel's representations were incorrect. The contract against which the delivery orders were placed states: Acceptance of all equipment and licensed programs delivered under this Contract shall be deemed to have occurred the first scheduled workday following receipt of the equipment and licensed programs by the Government unless the equipment or licensed programs have been damaged during shipment or are found upon receipt to be defective in materials and/or workmanship. Motion, Exhibit 7. Contrary to the contracting officer's instructions, IRS paid for the equipment while the protest was pending. Id., Exhibits 2, 6. The contractor will not refund any money for used equipment which is returned. Id., Exhibit 2. Having provided evidence of the foregoing, Treasury now asks the Board to amend its decision to grant the agency relief from the remedy ordered, in whatever way the Board deems appropriate. Motion at 3. Protester did not respond to the motion. Under the statute, the delivery orders placed by the IRS "shall be presumed valid as to all goods or services delivered and accepted under [them]" prior to the time the Board fashions relief. We knew earlier that all equipment specified in the delivery orders had been delivered by the time we issued our decision. We now know that by operation of the contract under which the orders were placed, the equipment had been accepted as well. The IRS has all the equipment which (a) it needs and (b) is covered by the procurements in question. For us to force the agency to rescind the orders and take corrective action designed to permit the acquisition of the same or similar equipment in accordance with the requirements of statute and regulation would consequently be inappropriate. See generally United States v. Amdahl Corp., 786 F.2d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We therefore amend our decision as follows: Finding 9 is amended to read: The protests were filed on October 13. By that time, the equipment covered by the orders had been delivered to the CDC, and some of it had been installed. By operation of GTSI's GSA schedule contract, because the equipment had been delivered and none of it had been found to be damaged or defective in materials and/or workmanship prior to the first scheduled workday following the equipment's receipt, the equipment had been accepted as well. The paragraph entitled "Decision" is amended to read: The protests are GRANTED. Because the goods in question have already been accepted, the Board orders no further relief. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(6)(B) (1988). Decision The motion for relief from decision is GRANTED. The decision is amended as specified. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge Board Judge