____________________________________________
 
                         GRANTED:  April 3, 1995
              ____________________________________________
 
        
                         GSBCA 13196-C(12928-P)
 
 
                      COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                           Respondent,
 
        Marcia  G. Madsen,  Brian W.  Craver, and  David F.  Dowd of
   Morgan, Lewis &  Bockius, Washington, DC; and  Charles B. Machion
   and Peter A. Fish of  Computer Data Systems, Inc., Rockville, MD,
   counsel for Protester.
 
        Wendy  Nevett  Bazil,  Personal Property  Division,  General
   Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and DEVINE.
 
   PARKER, Board Judge.
 
 
        Computer Data  Systems, Inc. (CDSI)  moves for award  of its
   costs of  filing and  pursuing a  successful protest  against the
   General Services Administration (GSA).  In  CBIS Federal, Inc. v.
   General  Services Administration, GSBCA 12925-P, et al., 95-1 BCA
     27,352,  1994 BPD    234, the  Board  granted the  consolidated
   protests  of  CBIS and  CDSI,  holding  that  GSA  had  committed
   violations of statute  and regulation in awarding  a contract for
   automatic data processing support services.
 
        CDSI requests  reimbursement of costs  totaling $166,319.30.
   This  amount  consists  of  outside  counsel  fees  of  $118,068,
   expenses totaling $36,606.16 (which  includes expert witness fees
   of $12,534), in-house legal costs of $11,202.07, and other direct
   costs  totaling  $472.07.[foot #] 1     GSA   has  informed   the
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1 CDSI did  not request reimbursement  of the costs
   of in-house, non-attorney personnel who worked on the protest.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   Board that it considers the  claimed amounts to be reasonable and
   that it does not contest CDSI's motion.
 
 
                               Discussion
 
        The Brooks Act provides that  when the Board determines that
   an agency has violated a  statute, regulation, or the  conditions
   of a delegation of procurement  authority, the Board may grant an
   "appropriate interested party"  its costs of filing  and pursuing
   the  protest,  including  reasonable attorney  fees.    40 U.S.C.
     759(f)(5)(C)  (1988).  An appropriate interested party has been
   defined as a "prevailing party" or "one that has succeeded on any
   significant issue  in the  litigation that achieves  some of  the
   benefit it  sought in  bringing suit."   Bedford Computer  Corp.,
   GSBCA 9837-C(9742-P),  89-2 BCA    21,827, at  109,811, 1989  BPD
     121, at 3.  The statute implies that the costs and  fees sought
   to  be  reimbursable  must  be  reasonable.    United  States  v.
   Compusearch Software Systems, 936 F.2d 564, 566 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
 
 
        CDSI clearly  is a prevailing  party.   As a  result of  the
   protest, the Board found violations of statute and regulation and
   CDSI  received  the   relief  it  sought  --  re-entry  into  the
   competition.   Thus, CDSI is  an appropriate interested  party to
   recover its costs of filing and pursuing the protest.  
 
        We have  independently reviewed the  documentation submitted
   by CDSI  in support  of its  application.   We  find the  claimed
   amount to be both well documented and reasonable.
 
                                Decision
 
        CDSI's application  for costs is  GRANTED.  CDSI  is awarded
   the  sum of  $166,319.30, to  be paid  without interest  from the
   permanent indefinite judgment fund, 31 U.S.C.   1304 (1988). 
 
         
 
                                      _________________________
                                      ROBERT W. PARKER
                                      Board Judge
 
 
   We concur:
   _________________________          _________________________
   STEPHEN M. DANIELS                 DONALD W. DEVINE
   Board Judge                        Board Judge