_____________________________ GRANTED IN PART: September 10, 1992 _____________________________ GSBCA 11366-C(11207-P) ST SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Protester, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Richard J. Webber and John J. O'Brien of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Sumara M. Thompson-King, Office of the General Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LaBELLA, Acting Chief Judge, DEVINE, and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On July 25, 1991, ST Systems Corporation filed a motion to recover its costs of filing and pursuing the underlying protest. Protester seeks a total of $60,629.37 in attorney fees and expenses. The respondent, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, objects to the award of $3,714.50 of that amount. The agency attributes the objectionable costs to those incurred because of the inadvertent disclosure of protected information by counsel for protester; that is, the agency maintains that the $3,714.50 are costs which were avoidable with the exercise of greater care and diligence in submitting information to the client. The Board awards protester $56,914.87, thereby reducing the protester-requested amount by $3,714.50. It is not reasonable for the Government to reimburse a party for costs that party incurred because its counsel violated a protective order of the Board. Findings of Fact In filing and pursuing this matter, protester has incurred attorney fees, at specific hourly rates and for discrete numbers of hours, of $54,014. Various expenses incurred by protester through the attorneys amount to $6,637.87, although protester requests $6,615.37 ($22.50 less than the total documented in the record). Protester's Motion, Attachments A and B. Those expenses incurred (including, e.g., amounts for telecopying, duplicating, transcripts) are of the variety heretofore reimbursed by the Board as costs or legal expenses. Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C(9835-P), 1992 BPD 141 (May 22, 1992). The protester-requested amount includes a charge for hours expended on matters relating to the release of protected information by one of protester's counsel. ST Systems Corp., GSBCA 11207-P, 91-3 BCA 24,201, at 121,052, 1991 BPD 154, at 19-20; Protester's Motion, Attachment A. Specifically, protester seeks to be reimbursed for hours expended by its counsel in informing the Board and agency of the disclosure and responding to related motions and participating in telephone conferences. With specific reference to the documentation submitted by protester in this cost case, the agency contends that counsel expended $3,714.50 on such matters. Agency Response. Protester has introduced no information into the record suggesting the inaccuracy of the agency-proffered conclusions and calculations. The record supports the agency's assertions. Accordingly, the Board finds that protester seeks to recover $3,714.50 in attorney fees it incurred because its counsel disclosed protected information in violation of a protective order. Discussion Protester seeks $60,629.37 in attorney fees and expenses incurred in filing and pursuing the protest. The agency has no objection regarding payment of $56,914.87. However, the agency objects to payment of the remainder, $3,714.50, which it attributes to efforts relating to protester's counsel's inadvertent disclosure to its client of material then subject to the Board's protective order. By decision dated June 28, 1991, the Board granted the protest underlying this cost case. ST Systems. The Board determined that the agency's exclusion of protester from the competition was unreasonable and arbitrary in terms of the evaluation and selection criteria and of the bases for negotiated procurements. Now the Board concludes that protester prevailed in that protest on significant issues and is an appropriate party to recover costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Statute entrusts the Board with determining the reasonableness of the amount awarded. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988); Sterling Federal. Here, the record supports the amount protester requests as costs it incurred in filing and pursuing the protest. However, protester's counsel disclosed protected information during the course of the protest in violation of a protective order. Protester's counsel acted reasonably and responsibly in bringing the facts and circumstances surrounding the inappropriate disclosure to the attention of the Board and agency. Protester's counsel reasonably participated in telephone conferences and in submitting responses to related issues. However, it is not reasonable to reimburse protester costs protester incurred because of inappropriate actions of its counsel. Accordingly, the Board reduces the amount of the award by the amount requested by the agency. Decision The Board deems protester to be entitled to $56,914.87, to be paid in accordance with statute, 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988), 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). _________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ VINCENT A. LaBELLA DONALD W. DEVINE Acting Chief Board Judge Board Judge