RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY GRANTED IN PART: June 24, 1993 GSBCA 12297-C(12195-P) COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS, INC., Protester, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Marcia G. Madsen, Brian W. Craver, Don W. Blevins, and Gerald T. Nielson of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Pamela Reiner, Seth Binstock, and Kurt Summers, Office of the General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Background On March 4, 1993, respondent, General Services Administration (GSA), moved that the Board allow discovery into the reasonableness of protest costs sought by protester, Computer Data Systems, Inc. (CDSI), and conduct a fact-finding hearing on this issue. Respondent's Motion in Opposition to Protester's Claim for Protest Costs at 14. Respondent argues that the number of hours spent by protester's counsel is unreasonable given the duration of the protest and that further factual support is necessary in order to determine the reasonableness issue. Respondent seeks inquiry in the form of interrogatories and depositions. Protester contends that its documentation of costs incurred is sufficient, that the amounts requested are reasonable, and that respondent's actions in the protest increased the effort 2 required on the part of protester. Protester's Response to Respondent's Motion in Opposition to Protester's Claim for Protest Costs at 2-4. Further, protester argues that discovery would not add anything to the information already in the record. Finally, in the event the Board grants respondent discovery, protester requests that it also be permitted to conduct discovery into GSA's timeliness in settling the protest. Letter from Protester's Counsel to the Board (June 3, 1993). Discussion A petition for costs is expected to "contain documentation which thoroughly explains and documents the amount of the costs claimed, the nature of the work and other expenses, and the reasonableness of the claim." Automated Business Systems & Services, Inc., GSBCA 9047-C(8972-P), 88-2 BCA 20,779, at 104,987, 1988 BPD 91, at 4. Additionally, the protester has the burden of proving its entitlement and providing the necessary evidence to support its claim. Digital Equipment Corp., GSBCA 9285-C(9131-P), 89-1 BCA 21,545, at 108,435, 1989 BPD 5, at 3. In cost cases, the Board has permitted discovery into various components of a protester's request for costs in order to assess the reasonableness of the claim. Storage Technology Corp., GSBCA 9939-C(9793-P), 90-3 BCA 23,041, at 115,678, 1990 BPD 150, at 3 (amount of document reproduction); Automated Business Systems & Services, Inc., 88-2 BCA at 104,987, 1988 BPD 91, at 3 (proposal preparation costs). We have also made requests of a protester to show further justification of specific elements in its petition for costs. Gallegos Research Group Corp., GSBCA 10125-C(9983-P), 90-1 BCA 22,609, at 113,448, 1990 BPD 21, at 3. However, a protester is not required to respond to burdensome or unnecessary document requests regarding a cost claim. Digital Equipment Corp., 89-1 BCA at 108,435, 1989 BPD 5, at 3. Nor should "[a] request for attorney's fees . . . result in a second major litigation." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). Here, protester has submitted numerous pages of documentation of the costs incurred for in-house attorneys and outside counsel. Protester's Motion for Award of Protest Costs; Protester's Supplemental Motion for Award of Protest Costs; Protester's Response to Respondent's Motion in Opposition to Protester's Claim for Protest Costs. Protester's documentation includes time sheets which identify the attorney performing various activities, and state the daily total of hours spent on several tasks without segregating the time spent on individual tasks. We find further information regarding several elements of protester's cost petition is necessary to allow the Board to assess the reasonableness of the claim. See Computer Systems & 3 Resources, Inc., GSBCA 9302-C(9176-P), 1988 BPD 70 (Apr. 18, 1988) (Board granted respondent's motion for discovery where it found proposed interrogatories sought a detailed explanation of protester's claim for each item of bid and proposal costs); cf. Communications Resource Group, Inc. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11038-C(10998-P), 92-2 BCA 24,769, at 123,577-78, 1992 BPD 29, at 4-5 (Board reduced award by 75% where protester's claim for 534 hours of company officials' time was unreasonable on its face given the short duration of the protest). Here, respondent alleges that protester spent 133 hours preparing the complaint and 112 hours drafting 105 interrogatories. Respondent's Motion in Opposition to Protester's Claim for Protest Costs at 9-11. According to protester's documentation, outside counsel spent 127.25 hours from November 23 through November 30, 1992, and 381.55 hours from December 1 through December 15, 1992, pursuing its protest. Although protester describes each daily activity performed by counsel, we are unable to determine the specific number of hours spent preparing the complaint and the interrogatories because protester's documentation does not segregate hourly totals by individual task. Additionally, we note that counsel's staff spent anywhere from 15.5 to 22.5 hours Bate-stamping documents from December 9 through December 11, 1992. The Board recognizes that these hours may be justified. However, such justification is not now apparent on the record. Decision Respondent's request for discovery is GRANTED IN PART. Discovery is restricted to interrogatories and requests for production of documents concerning the activities of protester's outside counsel from November 23, 1992 through December 15, 1992; the hours spent in preparing the complaint and interrogatories and Bate-stamping documents; and the need for two or more attorneys to perform what were described in time sheets as identical tasks. Discovery is to be completed within forty-five days from the date of this order, i.e., on August 8, 1993. A status conference will be held via telephone on August 12, 1993, at 10:00 a.m. Respondent's motion for a fact-finding hearing is denied without prejudice. Protester's request for discovery in its June 3, 1993, letter is denied. MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS 4 Board Judge