GRANTED IN PART: January 26, 1993 GSBCA 9995-C(9869-P)-REIN ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS FEDERAL CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent, Ronald K. Henry and Stephen L. Teichler of Baker & Botts, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Prentis Cook, Jr., Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and VERGILIO. PARKER, Board Judge. In 1989, Electronic Data Systems Federal Corporation (EDS), protester, successfully protested the decision by the Department of Energy to award an automatic data processing maintenance and support contract to Planning Research Corporation (PRC). Electronic Data Systems Federal Corp., GSBCA 9869-P, 89-2 BCA 21,655, 1989 BPD 69. Protester asked for an award of its protest costs in 1989, but we dismissed the motion without prejudice while an appeal of that decision was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Electronic Data Systems Federal Corp., GSBCA 9995-C(9869-P), 1990 BPD 355 (Oct. 25, 1990). The Court recently denied PRC's appeal, Planning Research Corp. v. United States, 971 F.2d 736 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and protester has since moved to reinstate its cost motion and seek other fees incurred. However, citing Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C(9835-P), 92-3 BCA 25,118, 1992 BPD 141, appeal docketed, No. 92-1552 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 1992), respondent asks the Board to deny recovery of EDS's employee salaries and litigation costs incurred before the Court of Appeals. In the motion filed on March 28, 1989, protester requested costs of $223,966.04, which included $213,486.67 paid to outside counsel for fees and disbursements. Protester also requested costs incurred for EDS employees, including $7,896.83 in salaries paid to six EDS personnel who aided outside counsel in preparing the case and $2,582.54 that these employees spent on LEXIS research. Motion of EDS for Award of Costs, Exhibit B. Protester described one of the six EDS employees as a person who worked with outside counsel full-time to minimize paralegal charges, Motion at 5, another as a contract manager, three as contract administrators, and one as a contract assistant, id., Exhibit B. Concerning other internal expenses, protester said only that "[d]espite its entitlement, EDS does not seek reimbursement for the costs associated with the time EDS' General Counsel and a number of other personnel spent working on the protest." Id. at 5. Protester also seeks a total of $10,967.50[foot #] 1 in allowable costs incurred to litigate a motion for reconsideration brought by PRC. Electronic Data Systems Federal Corp., GSBCA 9869-P-R, 89-2 BCA 21,778, 1989 BPD 111 (reconsideration denied). In its 1992 petition, protester also seeks the $63,312.52 it incurred before the Court of Appeals. In another supplemental fee request, protester asks for $2,002.50 in allowable costs incurred to file the 1992 motion to reinstate the 1989 cost motion, plus $10,228.04 to brief the issues raised in Sterling and Sysorex Information Systems, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 10781-C(10642-P)-REIN, 1992 BPD 235 (Sept. 8, 1992). We begin by denying protester's request for $63,312.52 incurred before the Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated in Sysorex, 1992 BPD 235, at 7. Consistent with our recent ruling in Electronic Data Systems Federal Corp. v. Department of Energy, GSBCA 10386-C(10100-P), slip op. at 2 (Jan. 8, 1993), we also deny the salaries of protester's employees, in the amount of $7,896.83. Although a few of these employees appear to have performed some substantive legal research concerning the False Claims Act and fraud statutes, Motion, Exhibit B, they are neither attorneys nor permanent legal support staff. Instead, these employees chiefly answered interrogatories and found documents, as most clients traditionally would; they did not chart legal strategy and analyze cases and statutes, as attorneys traditionally would. See Sterling, 92-3 BCA at 125,221, 1992 BPD 141, at 11 ("neither the Brooks Act, nor the more detailed EAJA, specifically authorizes shifting to the United States ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 On May 18, 1989, protester filed a supplemental cost motion for $9,302.50 incurred to litigate this reconsideration motion. In its 1992 petition, protester has asked for another $1,665 incurred in connection with the reconsideration. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- liability for salaries"); accord, Old Stone Leasing Corp. v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 10747-C(10613-P), 1992 BPD 331, at 6 (Nov. 4, 1992) (request for in-house, non-attorney employee costs denied). We also disallow the $2,582.54 LEXIS fee charged for work that the non-attorney EDS employees performed. Again, this amount is not a part of attorney's fees, as it was when in-house counsel performed it in Electronic Data Systems Federal Corp. v. Department of Energy, slip op. at 3. Nor is it a taxable cost. Sterling, 92-3 BCA at 125,121-22, 1992 BPD 141, at 11. Finally, protester incurred a total of $10,228.04 to argue that Sterling and Sysorex were inapplicable here, although it did not convince us that its position was correct. We thus deny those briefing costs. After reviewing the documents supporting the other charges, we find that the remainder of its costs and fees are reasonable. We grant protester the $226,456.67 in attorney's fees and disbursements incurred by outside counsel in its fee petitions filed from 1989 to present. Decision Protester's motion is GRANTED IN PART. Protester is awarded $226,456.67, to be paid in accordance with statute, 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988). 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). _________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge