GRANTED IN PART: October 20, 1994 GSBCA 10601-C(10381-P) STERLING FEDERAL SYSTEMS, INC., Protester, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Alan I. Saltman and Kevin R. Garden of Saltman & Stevens, P.C., Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. David P. Forbes and Sumara M. Thompson-King, Office of General Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, and Rosamond M. French, NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and WILLIAMS. DANIELS, Board Judge. Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. (Sterling), has moved the Board, pursuant to its Rule 35, to award Sterling the costs of filing and pursuing a protest against the award of a contract by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This contract, for computer software services to all organizational elements of the agency's NASA-Ames Research Center over a three to five year period, was given to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). The Board found that NASA violated requirements of statute and regulation by awarding the contract to a firm which misrepresented the salaries of certain of its key personnel, thereby distorting the competition, and which consequently should have been disqualified from the procurement. Sterling Federal Systems, Inc., GSBCA 10381-P, 90-2 BCA 22,802, 1990 BPD 70. The hearing in this case lasted twenty-three days. For a good portion of this time, Sterling was required to defend itself against unproven allegations by NASA and CSC that Sterling was the offeror which was guilty of misrepresentations to the Government during the procurement in question. Because of the length of the proceedings, Sterling's costs were high; the total amount claimed, after three amendments to the initial motion, is $1,621,047.06. This amount may be divided into four parts: attorney fees, $1,078,404.20; disbursements made by attorneys for many litigation-related expenses -- court reporting services, travel, photocopying and delivery of documents, computerized legal research, and the like -- $119,487.14; disbursements made by attorneys for another group of litigation-related expenses, consultant fees, $233,950.76; and Sterling's in-house personnel costs, $188,319.56.[foot #] 1 NASA has no objection to our awarding all of the requested amounts for the first two categories described above. In this opinion, we address only those categories of costs. Sterling's request for reimbursement of its consultant fees and in-house personnel costs will be resolved in a separate decision. 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). An appropriate interested party, for the purposes of this provision, is a party which prevails in the case, by succeeding on a significant issue and achieving the benefit it sought in bringing the suit. Stanley Computer Systems, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 12871-C(12700-P), 1994 BPD 183, at 2 (Sept. 8, 1994); Bedford Computer Corp., GSBCA 9837-C(9742-P), 89-2 BCA 21,827, at 109,811, 1989 BPD 121, at 3. As our decision in the underlying protest makes clear, Sterling prevailed in its protest and is therefore an appropriate interested party to have its protest costs reimbursed. The statute authorizing cost awards is designed to make each prevailing party whole "from pursuing its protest so long as the fees and costs it seeks to recover are reasonable." United States v. Compusearch Software Systems, 936 F.2d 564, 566 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Based on an examination of the attorney fees and ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The components, when added together, do not equal the total claimed. This minor discrepancy is of no importance to this decision. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- disbursements allegedly incurred by Sterling, and the documentation of them, we find that the costs are reasonable, well documented, and fall into categories of costs that this Board has determined to be appropriate for reimbursement. We note that on October 13, 1994, the President signed into law the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Public Law 103-355. Section 1435 of this Act amends 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) to limit (except for small business concerns) the hourly rates at which attorney fees may be reimbursed by Board order. This provision has no bearing on Sterling's motion for an award of protest costs. Section 10001 of the Act provides that section 1435, like most of the new law, shall take effect on the earlier of October 1, 1995, or such date as may be prescribed in regulations. The Board has given notice of its intention to establish an effective date for section 1435, but has not yet issued a regulation setting that date. Decision We consequently GRANT IN PART Sterling's motion and award to this firm the sum of $1,197,891.84, which reflects the attorney fees and litigation-related expenses (exclusive of consultant fees) incurred in filing and pursuing the protest. 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 We concur: _________________________ _________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge Board Judge