_____________________________________________
 
                        GRANTED:  June 26, 1995
              ____________________________________________
 
 
                         GSBCA 13274-C(13020-P)
 
    
                  ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                         DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Daniel Parker and  William Lieth of Electronic  Data Systems
   Corporation, Herndon, VA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Betty  R. London  and  Stephanie  Levy,  Office  of  General
   Counsel, Western Area Power Administration, Department of Energy,
   Golden, CO, counsel for Respondent.  
 
   Before Board Judges NEILL, WILLIAMS, and GOODMAN.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        The underlying  protest in  this case,  filed by  Electronic
   Data Systems Corporation (EDS), concerned the award of a contract
   for  automatic data  processing equipment  by  the Department  of
   Energy (DOE).   In the protest, as  amended, EDS alleged that DOE
   failed to  secure a  proper delegation  of procurement  authority
   (Count I),  made use  of an undisclosed  evaluation criterion  in
   evaluating  the awardee's proposed staff and key personnel (Count
   II),  waived  a  mandatory  requirement regarding  key  personnel
   (Count  III),  improperly  scored  the  evaluation  of  awardee's
   proposed  staff  and  key  personnel  (Count  IV),  performed  an
   improper cost evaluation which led to an incorrect award decision
   (Count V), and failed to procure in accordance with actual agency
   requirements (Count VI).  
 
        Following a full  hearing on the merits of  the protest, the
   Board  granted Count I of the protest and thus concluded that the
   protested award was void.  Following the Court of Appeals for the
   Federal Circuit's decision in CACI,  Inc. v. Stone, 990 F.2d 1233
   (Fed. Cir.  1993), we  recognized that the  Board itself  may not
   ratify  a  procurement  or contract  that  a  contracting officer
   lacked authority to issue.  Consequently, we did not consider the
   five remaining counts raised by protester regarding the propriety
   of the  award.   Electronic Data Systems  Corp. v.  Department of
   Energy, GSBCA 13020-P, 95-1 BCA   27,485, 1995 BPD   23 (1994).
 
 
        On  May 15, 1995, EDS  filed a motion  for costs pursuant to
   Rule 35.   The protester  seeks $34,535.38 for protest  costs and
   $26,664.80  for   proposal  preparation   costs.    Counsel   for
   respondent  has reviewed the  motion together with  the schedules
   and  supporting documentation it  contains and advised  the Board
   that it has  no objection to  the costs claimed.   The Board  has
   also reviewed the same material and finds the claimed costs to be
   reasonable.
 
                                Decision
 
        Protester's motion for costs is GRANTED.  EDS is entitled to
   an  award of  $61,200.18.   This  award is  to  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).  
 
 
                                           _________________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge
 
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   __________________________              _______________________
   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS              ALLAN H. GOODMAN
   Board Judge                             Board Judge