DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED: July 20, 1993 GSBCA 12214-C-R(12074-P) INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, v. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick of Skolnick & Leishman, 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. This is the second motion for costs filed by protester in conjunction with its successful protest in GSBCA 12074-P. The Board granted protester's first cost motion before protester requested reimbursement of an additional $450 associated with pursuing the cost case. Because protester neither reserved its right to seek additional costs associated with the cost petition nor timely supplemented its request to include such costs, the Board dismisses this cost case as untimely filed. Background On October 8, 1992, protester, Integrated Systems Group, Inc. (ISG), protested the award by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) of a delivery order for software against Government Technology Services, Inc.'s (GTSI's) General Services Administration schedule contract. The Board granted ISG's protest on November 9, 1992. The Board concluded that ISG reasonably interpreted DLA's Commerce Business Daily notice as establishing a forty-five-day closing date and that DLA erred in 2 refusing to answer ISG's request for clarification which was received on the fifteenth calendar day following publication of the notice. Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. Defense Logistics Agency, GSBCA 12074-P, 93-2 BCA 25,591, 1992 BPD 338. The Board revised DLA's delegation of procurement authority, directing it to terminate the award to GTSI and to issue a notice clarifying its requirements and specifying when responses to the notice would be due. On December 8, 1992, protester filed a timely motion to recover its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Rule 35 Motion for Award of Protest Costs, GSBCA 12214-C(12074-P) (First Motion for Costs). Nowhere in this cost motion or in its reply to respondent's motion in opposition to such motion did ISG reserve the right to submit further requests for costs incurred in preparing the cost motion. The Board granted ISG's cost motion in part on April 7, 1993, and awarded protester $1,950, representing outside counsel's fees. Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. Defense Logistics Agency, GSBCA 12214-C(12074-P), 1993 BPD 103 (Apr. 7, 1993). The awarded costs included payment for 1.5 hours incurred by protester for counsel's preparation of the Rule 35 motion. First Motion for Costs, Supporting Documentation. On May 5, 1993, protester filed a motion for reimbursement of costs incurred in pursuing its cost motion. The Board docketed this motion as this reconsideration case, GSBCA 12214-C- R(12074-P). Rule 35 Motion for Award of Protest Costs, GSBCA 12214-C-R(12074-P) (Second Motion for Costs). In this "second cost motion," ISG submitted documentation of additional hours expended by outside counsel as follows: 0.5 hour 1-19-93 Reviewed DLA's opposition to ISG's motion for the award of protest costs. Conversation with Steve Mills. 1.5 hours 1-22-93 Prepared ISG's reply to DLA's opposition to ISG's motion for the award of protest costs. Conversation with Steve Mills. 1.0 hour 4-12-93 Prepared Rule 35 motion for award of protest costs associated with DLA's opposition to ISG's earlier motion for the award of protest costs. Second Motion for Costs, Supporting Documentation. Discussion 3 Respondent claims ISG's second cost motion is untimely because its filing on May 5, 1993, came more than thirty days after the Board granted ISG's protest on November 9, 1992. Respondent's Opposition to Protester's Rule 35 Motion for Award of Protest Costs at 1-2.[foot #] 1 Protester claims its pending cost motion is timely, stating: The motion for costs, GSBCA 12214-C, was granted in part by the Board on April 7, 1993. This motion is timely filed, since it is being filed within the 30 days after the [April 7, 1993] decision, as required by Rule 35(b). Second Motion for Costs at 1. Protester argues that "Rule 35 applies a separate 30 days [sic] period for each docketing number," and that its interpretation of the rule is "consistent with both (a) the Board practice of assigning separate docketing numbers, and (b) the plain meaning of the phrase 'within 30 days after a decision sustaining a protest' in Rule 35(b)." Protester's Reply to Respondent's Opposition to Protester's Rule 35 Motion for Award of Protest Costs at 2. Board Rule 35(b) provides that "[w]ithin 30 days after a decision sustaining a protest, an interested party may submit a motion . . . requesting the Board to issue an order requiring respondent to pay [the interested party's] costs."[foot #] 2 In the present case, protester claims it filed the pending motion within thirty days after we decided its first cost motion on April 7, 1993, and that it is therefore timely, presumably as a cost motion seeking recovery for a cost case. Protester's interpretation of Rule 35(b) is erroneous. The rule does not contemplate the filing of cost motion after cost motion in what should have been a single cost case. Such a procedure would lead to an endless stream of piecemeal litigation. The granting of a motion for costs does not equate to a "decision sustaining a protest." Rule 35(b). ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Moreover, respondent argues that even if construed as a motion for reconsideration of the Board's April 7, 1993, decision, protester's motion is untimely under Rule 32(c) because ISG did not file it within ten days of that decision. Respondent's Opposition to Protester's Rule 35 Motion for Award of Protest Costs at 2. Rule 32(c) requires that a motion for reconsideration be filed in a protest within 10 days after the date of receipt by the moving party of the decision. 48 CFR 6101.32(c) (1991). [foot #] 2 48 CFR 6101.35(b) (1991). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 4 Moreover, protester failed to reserve the right to seek recovery of any additional costs when it submitted its reply to respondent's opposition to its first cost motion. Protester's Reply to Respondent's Motion in Opposition to Protester's Motion for Award of Protest Costs.[foot #] 3 As such, its attempt to recoup such additional costs under the rubric of a new Rule 35 cost motion must fail. As we stated in Computervision Corp., GSBCA 8864-C(8744-P), 1988 BPD 128, at 3 (June 22, 1988), "[w]e will not permit such a fragmented presentation of a claim for costs." Decision For the foregoing reasons, protester's motion for the award of costs is DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED. MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge We concur: JAMES W. HENDLEY JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 3 We note that protester brought its present motion solely under Rule 35. Protester has not requested reconsideration under Rule 32(c), and we do not address the timeliness of such a motion here.