GRANTED: February 1, 1994 GSBCA 12697-C(12603-P) INTEGRATED SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., Protester, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Shelton H. Skolnick of Skolnick & Leishman, P.C., Derwood, MD, counsel for Protester. Jerald J. Kennemuth, Office of Chief Counsel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), BORWICK, and HYATT. DANIELS, Board Judge. On December 6, 1993, Integrated Systems Group, Inc., filed a motion for the award of costs incurred in successfully pursuing a protest against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) conduct of a microcomputer upgrade procurement. On January 5, 1994, protester amended this motion to include costs incurred in filing and pursuing the motion itself. Both the motion and the amendment were filed in accordance with Board Rule 35 and seek an award pursuant to authority vested in the Board by 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). In the underlying protest, Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GSBCA 12603-P, 1993 BPD 333 (Nov. 9, 1993), protester persuaded us that the agency had violated requirements of statute and regulation by using unnecessarily restrictive specifications in its invitation for bids. In the motion now before us, protester asks for an award of $8,708 -- $8,122 in fees charged by counsel for pursuing the protest and application for costs, and $586 for the cost of the hearing transcript. NASA objects in part to protester's motion; it maintains that the attorney fees charged for researching and writing protester's posthearing brief are excessive. The agency particularly urges that a junior attorney's having spent 18.8 hours in doing the bulk of this work was unreasonable, given the simplicity of the case. For the reasons discussed below, the Board grants the motion in full. Discussion Whenever the Board determines that a challenged agency action violates a statute or regulation, it may further declare an appropriate interested party to be entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorney fees. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(B), (C) (1988). A party that prevails in its protest is, generally, such a party. Bedford Computer Corp., GSBCA 9837-C(9742-P), 89-2 BCA 21,827, at 109,811, 1989 BPD 121, at 3. Integrated Systems Group, Inc., having succeeded in its protest, is eligible for an award of costs. The objective of the statute is to make each prevailing party whole "from pursuing its protest so long as the fees and costs it seeks to recover are reasonable." United States v. Compusearch Software Systems, 936 F.2d 564, 566 (Fed. Cir. 1991). NASA disputes the reasonability of only one portion of the cost application -- the fees associated with one attorney's work on the posthearing brief. As to all other items in protester's request, we have examined them and find them reasonable and appropriately documented. We look particularly at the item NASA calls to our attention. Is $1,880 -- the charge for a junior attorney's researching and writing the brief -- reasonable in this case? NASA asks us to consider the holdings in two other cases to assist in resolving the question. The first is React Corp., GSBCA 9530- C(9456-P), 88-3 BCA 21,026, 1988 BPD 161. In React, the protester claimed that many hours were spent preparing a case which involved only one issue of law (what constitutes a timely protest) and in which no issues of material fact were in dispute. We concluded that only half as many hours were reasonably expended. That case is quite unlike the present one, where the issue of law was self-evident, but the facts were in considerable dispute and understanding and analyzing them required a not insignificant education in microcomputer technology. The other decision cited by NASA is Marty's Maid & Janitorial Service v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11980-C(10614), 93-2 BCA 25,713 (1992), aff'd, No. 93-1200 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 1993). This was a case for reimbursement of litigation costs brought under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504(a), not the Brooks Act. The same principles underlie determinations of reasonableness of costs under the two statutes. In Marty's Maid, the Board considered excessive part of the time devoted by counsel to briefing the case, but still allowed reimbursement of fees related to hundreds of hours of attorney time, due to the complexity of the litigation. The instant protest was clearly of a different degree of magnitude from this case. The real lesson that React and Marty's Maid -- and innumerable other decisions -- have for the case at bar is that in determining the reasonableness of an application for reimbursement of costs, the Board has considerable latitude. As the Court of Appeals has recently explained -- [T]he GSBCA, in determining the allowability of particular costs, should, as it has done in the past, analyze and weigh the relevant factors, including the reasonableness and relevance of such costs to "filing and pursuing the protest," the extent to which such costs have been and are awarded by agencies and courts under other cost-shifting statutes, the promotion of efficiency in the procurement process, and the like. Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. Goldin, No. 92-1552, slip op. at 21 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 28, 1994). Our impression here is that given the factual complexity of the case, for an attorney to spend 18.8 hours on a brief was within the bounds of reasonability. The record consisted of twenty-nine separate documentary exhibits, totalling about two hundred pages, and a hearing transcript 130 pages in length. A basic understanding of computer technology was essential to making sense of this evidence. Although an experienced, knowledgeable attorney could probably have completed the brief in less than 18.8 hours, he or she would also quite likely have charged more than $100 per hour for the effort. All in all, a charge of $1,880 for researching and drafting the brief was fair. Decision Protester's motion is GRANTED. We award to protester the full amount requested, $8,708. This sum shall be paid, without interest, from the permanent indefinite judgment fund, 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988). 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C)(1988). _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge Board Judge