_______________________________________________ GRANTED IN PART: June 9, 1995 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 12622-C(12521-P, 12522-P) INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick, Judy D. Leishman, and Amy M. Hall of Skolnick & Leishman, P.C., counsel for Protester. Richard Couch and Jeffery I. Kessler, Army Material Command, Department of the Army, Alexandria, VA; and Michael Futch, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, PA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and WILLIAMS. BORWICK, Board Judge. Background In Integrated Systems Group Inc. v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 12622-C(12521-P, 12522-P), 94-2 BCA 26,819, 1994 BPD 65, we determined that Integrated Systems Group, Inc. (ISG) had prevailed in its protest. In the protested procurement, the Army needed equipment compatible with its installed base of Teradyne software, but limited the competition to Sun reduced instruction set computers. The principal issue was whether respondent s specific make and model justification was too restrictive when other Sun computers not using reduced instruction sets were also compatible with Teradyne software. Although the Board had not granted formal relief to ISG, we concluded that the Department of the Army s settlement of the protest, in the middle of the hearing on the merits, on terms favorable to ISG, was a concession by respondent of the validity of the grounds of protest. Integrated Systems Group v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 12521-P, et al., 94-2 BCA 26,819 at 133,378, 1994 BPD 65, at 3. Therefore, we awarded ISG attorney fees of $7,083 it incurred in filing and pursuing the protest. Id. ISG also seeks $600.00 for the expenses of its in-house Senior Technical Associate, Mr. Bendorf.[foot #] 1 According to ISG s schedule, Mr. Bendorf s burdened labor rate is $60.00 per hour; Mr. Bendorf spent ten hours working on the protest as set forth below:. Date Hours Item 8/12/93 5.50 Conversation with Army on technical issues 8/12/93 .50 Conversation with ISG s officers r e discussion with Army 9/08/93 2.00 Prepare for hearing with counsel 9/09/93 2.00 Attend hearing Protester s Supplemental Brief at 11; Protester s Motion for Award of Protest Costs, Time Report Schedule. Discussion We reserved ruling on ISG s claim for in-house employee costs pending a decision in accordance with the remand ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Board has now determined that in-house employee salaries and expenses incurred in handling a protest are valid "costs of filing and pursuing the protest" within the meaning of the Brooks Act, 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C-REM(9835-P), 95-1 BCA 25,575, 1995 BPD 65. We allow burdened salaries where the rate is reasonable and the time spent shown to have been necessary for the pursuit of the protest. Id. Here, the rate established by ISG for Mr. Bendorf is reasonable, and the time spent has been demonstrated to have been necessary for pursuit of the protest. We therefore award ISG $600 as a cost of filing and pursuing the protest. Decision We GRANT IN PART ISG s motion and award the sum of $600, which reflects all amounts, exclusive of costs previously awarded, which ISG necessarily and reasonably incurred in filing and pursuing the protest. This sum shall be paid, without ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 ISG withdrew its claim of $1,008 for the time spent on the protest by ISG s Vice President. Protester s Supplemental Brief at 2 n. 1. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- interest, from the permanent indefinite judgment fund, 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988). 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge I concur: _________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge WILLIAMS, Board Judge, concurring. Although I do not agree that this Board should reimburse in- house employee costs, I concur in the result reached by the panel because the majority of the panel in Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C(9835-P), 95-1 BCA 27,575, 1995 BPD 65, squarely upheld the payment of such costs. E.g., Litton Systems, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, GSBCA 11915-C-R (11736-P/11745-P), 1994 BPD 149, at 8-9. _________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge