__________________________________
        
                   GRANTED IN PART: November 10, 1992
                   __________________________________
 
                         GSBCA 11675-C(11506-P)
 
                             ODETICS, INC.,
                   DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DIVISION,
 
                                        Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
 
                                        Respondent.
 
        Richard Clark  of Baker  & Hostetler,  McCutchen Black,  Los
   Angeles, CA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Craig  E. Hodge  and  Major William  R.  Medsger, U.S.  Army
   Materiel  Command, Alexandria, VA,  and Major John  L. Long, U.S.
   Army  Belvoir Research,  Development &  Engineering Center,  Fort
   Belvoir, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before  Board Judges  LaBELLA, Acting  Chief  Judge, PARKER,  and
   VERGILIO.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
        In a motion filed on  January 21, 1992, protester,  Odetics,
   Inc., Data Management Systems Division, requested recovery of its
   costs of filing  and pursuing its underlying  successful protest.
   The  agency  does  not  dispute the  recovery  now  requested  by
   protester.  The Board grants protester's request in the amount of
   $93,859.48.
 
                            Findings of Fact
 
        In a decision issued on December 24, 1991, the Board granted
   the  protest  underlying this  cost  case.   Odetics  Inc., GSBCA
   11506-P, 92-1 BCA   24,738, 1992 BPD   5.
 
        Pursuant to Rule 35, on  January 21, 1992, protester filed a
   motion to recover its costs of filing and pursuing the underlying
   protest.  As later amended, to include the cost of the transcript
   of  the  hearing on  the  merits,  protester  sought  to  recover
   $104,840.51.  That  figure represents legal fees  and expenses in
   the amount of $97,501.93, witness  fees and expenses of  $651.30,
   and in-house personnel efforts of $6,687.28.
 
        By letters of February 12 and 13, protester offered, and the
   agency accepted, a reduction in the  requested amount of recovery
   to $99,993.40.   This reduced  amount includes  $6,133.92 of  in-
   house personnel efforts.
 
        The Board finds  that $93,859.48 (the requested  amount less
   $6,133.92  for in-house personnel efforts) is well documented and
   reasonable, and generally of the variety reimbursed by the  Board
   as legal fees or expenses or as  taxable costs.  Sterling Federal
   Systems,  Inc. v.  National Aeronautics  & Space  Administration,
   GSBCA  10000-C(9835-P), 1992  BPD   141  (May  22, 1992),  appeal
   filed, No. 92-1552 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 1992)  (reversing earlier
   decisions,  the Board  determined that  its  authority to  permit
   recovery of costs of filing and  pursuing a protest is limited to
   attorney  fees and  taxable  costs; specifically,  non-testifying
   expert  witness fees and  in-house, non-attorney efforts  are not
   recoverable beyond those recoverable as taxable costs).
 
                               Discussion
 
        Concluding that  it would not  be in  the Government's  best
   interest to reopen  discussions after an award had  been made and
   information made available  to the offerors, because  that action
   would  constitute an impermissible auction, the Board granted the
   protest  underlying this motion  for award  of costs.   Protester
   prevailed   on  its  significant  issue  and  is  an  appropriate
   interested party  to recover its  reasonable costs of  filing and
   pursuing  the protest.    40 U.S.C.    759(f)(5)(C)  (1988).   As
   determined in Sterling, the Board is unable to authorize recovery
   of  the $6,133.92  sought  for in-house  personnel efforts.   The
   remainder,  $93,859.48,  represents  reasonable  and  appropriate
   attorney fees and expenses or taxable costs.
 
                                Decision
 
        The  Board   concludes  that  protester  is  an  appropriate
   interested  party entitled  to recover  its costs  of filing  and
   pursuing  the protest  in the  amount of  $93,859.48.   The Board
   denies recovery of $6,133.92, which represents in-house  efforts.
   Accordingly,  the Board GRANTS  IN PART protester's  motion.  The
   amount  awarded is  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                   ROBERT W. PARKER
   Acting Chief Board Judge             Board Judge