GRANTED IN PART: April 7, 1993
                                                     
 
                         GSBCA 12214-C(12074-P)
 
                    INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC.,
 
                                                Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                       DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Shelton H. Skolnick, Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester.
 
        Walter  Thomas,  Office  of  the  General  Counsel,  Defense
   Logistics Agency, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before Board Judges HENDLEY, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
                               Background
 
        On December 8,  1992, protester,  Integrated Systems  Group,
   Inc. (ISG), filed  a motion for award of  costs incurred pursuing
   its protest concerning the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) award
   of  a delivery  order  for  software  placed  against  Government
   Technology    Services,    Inc.'s   (GTSI)    General    Services
   Administration schedule contract.  Based upon record submissions,
   we granted  the  protest.   Integrated  Systems  Group,  Inc.  v.
   Defense Logistics Agency, GSBCA 12074-P, 1992  BPD   338 (Nov. 9,
   1992).   We concluded  that DLA's  Commerce Business  Daily (CBD)
   notice  was reasonably interpreted  as establishing a forty-five-
   day closing  date and that the agency erred in refusing to answer
   ISG's  request  for  clarification  which  was  received  on  the
   fifteenth  calendar day following  publication of the  CBD notice
   and  in  awarding  to  GTSI  on  the  eighteenth   day  following
   publication   of  the  CBD  notice.    We  revised  the  agency's
   delegation of  procurement authority,  directing it to  terminate
   the  award to  GTSI and  to  issue a  CBD  notice clarifying  its
   requirements and specifying when responses to the notice would be
   due.
 
        In  accordance with Rule 35, protester timely filed a motion
   to  recover  its  costs  of  filing  and  pursuing  the  protest.
   Respondent has  objected to  the hourly rate  of $150  charged by
   ISG's  attorney, claiming that protester can only recover fees at
   a maximum rate of $75 per hour, consistent with the  Equal Access
   to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C.   504(a) (1988).  Respondent also
   contends that protester is not  entitled to be reimbursed for the
   time its vice president of marketing  devoted to the protest.  As
   explained  below, we  conclude  that  the  $150  hourly  rate  is
   appropriate, but  deny protester's  claim for  in-house personnel
   costs.
 
                               Discussion
 
        Statute empowers the Board to award costs whenever the Board
   makes a determination that a challenged agency  action violates a
   statute or  regulation or  the  conditions of  any delegation  of
   procurement  authority.   40  U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(B),  (C) (1988).
   Here, the agency  violated statute and regulation;  the protester
   obtained  significant  relief.    Therefore,  the  protester  may
   recover its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest.
 
        Protester  has  claimed $3,070  as  its cost  of  filing and
   pursuing the protest.  This includes $1,950 representing 13 hours
   of  outside counsel's time  and $1,120  representing 14  hours of
   ISG's vice president's  time for preparation  of the protest  and
   briefs,   conversations  with  outside  counsel,  and  review  of
   documents, as well as preparation of the cost motion.
 
        The  Board finds  both  the hours  expended  and the  amount
   billed  by  outside  counsel  to  be  reasonable.    Contrary  to
   respondent's argument,  the EAJA $75-per-hour  fee limitation  is
   not  controlling  in  protests.    The  hourly  rate  charged  by
   protester's counsel  is  well within  the range  of hourly  rates
   charged by attorneys in the Washington, DC, area.
 
        However, as we have recognized,  the Board is not authorized
   to award in-house, non-attorney costs in excess of taxable costs.
   Sterling  Federal Systems, Inc.  v. National Aeronautics  & Space
   Administration,  GSBCA 10000-C(9835-P),  92-3 BCA    25,118, 1992
   BPD    141 (full Board), appeal  docketed, No. 92-1552 (Fed. Cir.
   Sept. 28, 1992); see Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. Department
   of  Energy,  GSBCA 12176-C(12075-P)  (Apr. 1,  1993);  Integrated
   Systems   Group,    Inc.    v.   Department    of    the    Navy,
   GSBCA 12236-C(12127-P), 1993  BPD    25  (Jan. 22,  1993);  Rocky
   Mountain    Trading   Co.    v.    Department   of    the   Army,
   GSBCA 11033-C(20879-P), 1993 BPD   20 (Jan. 14, 1993).
 
                                Decision
 
        For  reasons  stated  above, we  GRANT  IN  PART protester's
   motion for  costs  and  award  protester  the  amount  of  $1,950
   representing  outside counsel's fees.  We DENY protester's claims
   for in-house non-attorney labor costs.
 
                                      __________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge
 
   We concur:
 
 
 
   ____________________________       ____________________________
   JAMES W. HENDLEY                   JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
   Board Judge                        Board Judge