_____________________________ GRANTED IN PART: June 19, 1995 _____________________________ GSBCA 11294-C(11206-P) CBIS FEDERAL INC., Applicant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Joseph J. Petrillo of Petrillo & Hordell, Washington, DC, counsel for Applicant. Susan R. Trippi and Rosa M. Koppel, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges HYATT, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On June 14, 1991, CBIS Federal Inc. filed with the Board this motion for the award of its costs of filing and successfully pursuing the underlying protest. The Board grants the recovery of all but the in-house costs which are not supported in the record. Findings of Fact By opinion dated May 21, 1991, this Board granted the underlying protest. As a disappointed offeror, the protester initially challenged agency actions in selecting an awardee and in failing to award the contract to the protester. During the course of the protest, the agency asserted a position that it would reject all proposals, cancel the solicitation, and satisfy its requirements through in-house efforts. In granting the protest, in response to motions for summary relief, the Board concluded that the agency had violated statute and regulation in rejecting all proposals and in determining to discontinue the procurement. CBIS Federal Inc., GSBCA 11206-P, et al., 91-2 BCA 23,995, 1991 BPD 117. The protester seeks to recover a total of $36,061.85 as its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. This amount consists of costs charged by retained counsel: $29,393.95 in hourly fees multiplied by hourly rates, and $2,546.18 in disbursements (for copying, facsimile, postage, cab fares, messengers, and computerized legal research); and in-house costs: $4,110.32 in burdened employee hourly rates, and $11.40 in employee travel expenses. The agency does not object to the award of the requested amount. Documentation in the record supports the requested attorney fees and disbursements. Each item is of a variety previously reimbursed by this Board. The Board finds the requested amount to be reasonable and related to reimbursable matters. The same is true for the employee travel expenses of $11.40. The in-house costs of burdened hourly rates are for efforts of four employees (a senior vice president, a vice president, a director of contracts, and a contracts manager). For each of the individuals, the record contains a breakdown of the hours spent on given days and a description of the activity involved. The record contains no information on how the claimed "direct labor" rates or the "fringe benefit" rate have been calculated. The sole explanation is a "certificate of accuracy" signed by the director of contracts: "On behalf of CBIS Federal Inc., I hereby certify that the information provided regarding the accompanying information on costs incurred by CBIS Federal Inc. in pursuit of the OCC protest are accurate." Discussion The protester prevailed in the underlying protest. The requested attorney fees and costs and in-house travel expenses were incurred in filing and pursuing the protest, are reasonable, and are of the variety found by this Board to be reimbursable. These costs amount to $31,951.53. The Board grants the recovery of these costs. The in-house employee costs are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The record does not demonstrate how the hourly rates or the fringe benefit rate were derived. A prerequisite to recovery of in-house costs requires support in the record: "Without a basis to determine the reasonableness of the hourly rate claimed by the president, we deny recovery with respect to all amounts for his efforts." Rocky Mountain Trading Co., GSBCA 8943-C(8845-P), 89-3 BCA 22,110, at 111,214, 1989 BPD 219, at 4. Accordingly, the Board denies recovery of the in-house employee costs. Decision The Board GRANTS IN PART the motion for recovery. The Board awards $31,951.53, as costs of filing and pursuing the protest, and denies the remainder, $4,110.32. The awarded amount is to be paid in accordance with statute. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988); 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988). ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge I concur: ____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge HYATT, Board Judge, concurring. I concur in the result reached by the majority because the amount awarded properly compensates protester for the efforts of counsel and does not include salary or salary-related costs of protester's in-house personnel. In my view, the latter costs should not be awarded regardless of the level of supporting documentation provided. See Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C-REM (9835-P), 95-1 BCA 27,575, 1995 BPD 65 (DeGraff, J., dissenting). ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge