GRANTED IN PART: October 30, 1995 GSBCA 12614-C(12489-P) INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Applicant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick of Skolnick & Leishman, Derwood, MD, counsel for Applicant. Vera Meza, US Army Materiel Command, Department of the Army, Alexandria, VA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE, and GOODMAN. DEVINE, Board Judge. The protest giving rise to this cost application was filed on July 8, 1993. It was granted by this Board on September 10, 1993. Protester-applicant, being both an interested and a prevailing party, filed this application for its protest costs on October 4, 1993, seeking the sum of $2,226, made up of $1,890 in attorney's fees and $336 representing the time spent on the protest by applicant's marketing vice president, Mr. Stephen Mills. Following the grant of the protest, the Government appealed the Board's decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and thereafter also filed a motion to dismiss applicant's cost application on the ground that the matter was not final since it had been appealed and not yet resolved. On December 14, 1993, the Board denied the Government's motion to dismiss the cost application, staying proceedings thereon until the appeal was resolved. Subsequently the Government withdrew its appeal to the Federal Circuit and the cost application is once again before us for decision. Applicant seeks $1,890 in attorney's fees based on the time that its lawyer expended in successfully conducting the underlying protest. A direction by the Board, however, that the lawyer file his original time sheets in support of the claimed fees, elicited the response that the lawyer did not keep time sheets as such. The 12.6 hours of professional time billed at $150 per hour was reconstructed from the documents and notes in the case files. Despite the lack of daily time sheets, the hours set out in the application and the matters necessarily handled by the applicant's lawyer agree with the Board's experience with the work involved in this protest, and the rate charged is consonant with the rates of other attorneys of similar experience, doing comparable work in the Washington, D.C. area. We find both to be reasonable and within the terms of the statute. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(B), (C) (1988). The applicant also seeks reimbursement for the time allegedly spent by its marketing vice president in connection with this protest. Mr. Mills lists an hourly rate of $80 and time expended of 4.2 hours. Mr. Mills submitted statements showing the dates upon which billable events occurred and the estimated time each event took. No contemporary time records were furnished, although these were twice requested by the Board, because none were kept. There is nothing beyond Mr. Mills' statement to show that his rate of pay is $80 per hour. This figure would work out to be a salary of approximately $167,000 per year. There is no evidence to show that this is the going rate for computer company vice presidents, or that it is a reasonable charge, or that it is Mr. Mills's actual rate of pay. In addition, Mr. Mills' title would indicate that he is not paid by the hour, and that his salary would be incurred by his company irrespective of the work that he was engaged upon. Under these circumstances the amount sought based on Mr. Mills's participation in the subject protest fails for lack of proof. CBIS Federal Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 11294-C(11206-P), 1995 BPD 125 (June 19, 1995). In addition to the failure of proof noted here, the compensation of employees is not a reimbursable item under the statute here involved. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(B) (1988). That statute allows only: the "costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys fees." I do not find employee costs to be within the purview of the statute. See, Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C-REM(9835-P), 95-1 BCA 27,575, 1995 BPD 65 (Degraff, J., dissenting). Decision Applicant is entitled to recover the sum of $1,890, representing the amount it incurred for attorney fees in filing and successfully pursuing the underlying protest. DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge DANIELS and GOODMAN, Board Judges, concurring. Applicant is entitled to the sum of $1,890 for attorney's fees incurred in filing and successfully pursuing the underlying protest for the reasons stated in the opinion above. Applicant's claim for reimbursement of costs allegedly incurred by its marketing vice president is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, as there was no evidence concerning the derivation and reasonableness of the hourly rate and no contemporaneous time records as to the time expended. We therefore concur that applicant should not be reimbursed for its employee costs. See, e.g., CBIS Federal Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 11294-C(11206-P), 1995 BPD 125 (June 19, 1995). We do not subscribe to the statements made in the final paragraph of the Discussion section of this opinion. STEPHEN M. DANIELS ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge Board Judge