GRANTED: June 27, 1995
                                                     
 
 
                         GSBCA 13065-C(12981-P)
 
 
                            COMPGRAPH, INC.,
 
                                           Applicant,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        Paralee  White and  William F.  Savarino of  Cohen  & White,
   Washington, DC, counsel for Applicant.
 
        Donald M. Suica and Lori R. Larson, General Legal  Services,
   Office  of Chief  Counsel, Internal Revenue  Service, Washington,
   DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), NEILL, and GOODMAN.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge.
 
        Compgraph,  Inc., protested  the Internal  Revenue Service's
   conduct  of a  procurement for the  supply of  portable printers.
   The agency  admitted that it  had violated laws in  ways alleged,
   agreed  to  terminate  and/or withdraw  its  intended  award, and
   stipulated that it would allow  Compgraph to submit a proposal in
   any  competitive   procurement  for  the   printers.    Compgraph
   thereupon withdrew its protest.  Compgraph, Inc. v. Department of
   the Treasury, GSBCA 12981-P, 1994 BPD   232 (Oct. 20, 1994).
 
        Compgraph then timely filed an  application for an award  of
   the  costs it  incurred in  filing  and pursuing  the protest  --
   $26,495.78,  including $26,186.25 in attorney fees and $309.53 in
   disbursements  made   by  counsel  for   reproduction,  facsimile
   transmission,  and courier  delivery of  documents; postage;  and
   long-distance telephone calls.
 
        Compgraph   submitted   with    its   application   detailed
   documentation  of  the  costs  it claimed.    The  agency  sought
   discovery   of   additional   documentation,  which   the   Board
   authorized.      Following   its   review   of   the   additional
   documentation, the agency stated that  it has no objection to the
   Board awarding to Compgraph reimbursement of all requested costs.
 
 
                               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).[foot #] 1     The   Board
   finds, based on an agency admission, that Compgraph's protest led
   to the  demonstration that laws  were violated in the  conduct of
   the subject procurement.  Compgraph secured the benefit it sought
   in  bringing  the  case.    Thus,  Compgraph  is  an  appropriate
   interested  party to  be  awarded  its  protest costs.    Applied
   Technology  Associates,  Inc.  v.  Department  of  Justice, GSBCA
   12898-C(12840-P),  1995 BPD    83  (Apr.  5,  1995)  (citing  IMS
   Services, Inc. v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 12922-C(12830-P),
   94-3 BCA   27,271, 1994 BPD   204); Bedford Computer Corp., GSBCA
   9837-C(9742-P), 89-2 BCA   21,827, at 109,811, 1989 BPD   121, at
   3.
 
        We are convinced, as is the agency, that the costs Compgraph
   claims are reasonable and well documented, and were necessary  to
   the successful pursuit  of the protest.   An award of  the entire
   amount requested is appropriate.
 
                                Decision
 
        We GRANT Compgraph's  application and award to this firm the
   reasonable,  necessary,  and  documented costs  of  pursuing  its
   protest, $26,495.78.  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
 
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1     This  statute  was  amended  by  the  Federal
   Acquisition  Streamlining Act  of  1994,  Pub.  L.  No.  103-355,
     1435, 108 Stat.  3243, 3293 (1994).  The earlier version of the
   statute  applies, however,  to all  cost applications  (including
   this one) where the underlying protest was  filed prior to May 5,
   1995.  60 Fed. Reg. 17023, 17023-24 (1995).
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   We concur:
   _________________________          _________________________
   EDWIN B. NEILL                     ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                        Board Judge