_______________________________________________ GRANTED IN PART: December 4, 1995 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 12901-C(12827-P) SYTEL, INC., Applicant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent. Pamela J. Mazza, Andrew P. Hallowell, Philip M. Dearborn, and Frank C. Gulin of Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, Washington, DC, counsel for Applicant. Alice A. Kelley and Dalton F. Phillips, Business and Administrative Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, NEILL, and HYATT. BORWICK, Board Judge. Sytel, Inc. (Sytel) has filed an application for its cost of filing and pursuing a protest against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the National Institutes of Health. We grant its application in part. The protest was Sytel, Inc. v. Department of Health and Human Services, GSBCA 12827-P, 1994 BPD 115, which challenged HHS's award of a contract for federal information processing support services to another vendor. The issue raised in that protest was how to reconcile HHS's best value analysis with the 60/40 weight given to technical and cost factors in the request for proposals (RFP). Id. The subsidiary issue was whether HHS's analysis was in accordance with the technical and cost factors specified in the RFP. Id. Before the scheduled hearing in the protest, Sytel and HHS entered into a consent motion and settlement agreement which stated that settlement negotiations were ongoing and which provided in pertinent part: Respondent agrees that, upon dismissal of the Protest pursuant to this Motion, Protestor shall be considered the prevailing party on significant issues raised in its Protest for purposes of entitlement to attorneys fees and costs from the permanent judgment fund and Respondent will not oppose Protestor's application for such reasonable costs and fees. Application, Exhibit A. Based upon the parties' motion, the Board dismissed the protest without prejudice, to be deemed a dismissal with prejudice unless reinstated by June 20. Sytel. Later, the parties settled the protest; HHS agreed to award a portion of its support service requirement to Sytel. Application, Exhibit B. Sytel maintains that it prevailed in the protest; consequently, it seeks its costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including $13,477.50 in attorney fees, $167.78 in attorney expenses and disbursements, and in-house costs (employee labor and expenses) of $15,686.45, for a total of $29,331.73. In support of its application for costs, Sytel has presented the certification and billing statement of its retained law firm, which establish that the law firm spent 88.25 hours on the protest, at billing rates of $175 per hour for the firm's partner and $155, $150, and $125 for the firm's associates. Sytel's counsel also incurred $167.78 in expenses for copying, courier, paralegal, and court reporter services. Sytel has also presented an affidavit as to its in-house costs. With regard to those costs, Sytel states: Sytel has incurred in-house expenses of $15,686.45 in connection with the preparation, filing and pursuit of this Protest. Sytel prepared its protest in-house and thereafter engaged [counsel] to represent it through the pendency of the Protest. The costs associated with preparation of the Protest comprise the largest portion of Sytel's in-house cost. These expenses were necessary and reasonable in successfully pursuing this Protest. Application, Exhibit D 4. Attached to the affidavit is a one-page summary schedule of supposed in-house costs. The schedule lists labor costs of five employees, giving their names and the supposed total labor costs for each individual. The schedule does not detail the responsibilities of these employees, what each employee contributed to the pursuit of the protest, the number of hours each individual spent in pursuit of the protest, or the relationship of the labor charges to the corporate compensation of these individuals. Application, Exhibit D, Schedule. The schedule also lists delivery expenses and copy charges of $46.21. Id. Discussion Prevailing parties are entitled to recover their costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorney fees and expenses, and in-house employee salaries and expenses. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988); Sterling Federal Systems v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Materials, Communication & Computers Inc. v. Defense Logistics Agency, GSBCA 13084- C(12930-P), 1995 BPD 161, at 4 (Aug. 8, 1995); Integrated Systems Group, Inc. v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 12622-C(12521-P, et al.), 94-2 BCA 26,819, 1994 BPD 65. However, we have emphasized that expense claims must be clearly documented as to their purpose and reasonableness of amount. We have rejected a claim for in-house costs when the submitted documentation did not allow us to make that determination. Materials, Communication & Computers Inc., 1995 BPD 161, at 5. It is evident that Sytel was a prevailing party in that it achieved the relief sought, even though the Board did not grant formal relief. Integrated Systems Group v. Department of the Army, GSBCA 12622-C(12521-P, et al.), 94-2 BCA 26,819, at 133,378, 1994 BPD 65, at 3. Sytel's application for attorney fees and expenses is adequately documented as to purpose and amount. The number of hours the attorneys spent, the work that they performed and the rates the attorneys charged are reasonable. Sytel, however, except for its courier and copying expenses, simply does not provide us with enough information to enable us to determine whether its in-house costs are reasonable. We deny the application for those costs. Decision Sytel's application is GRANTED IN PART. Sytel is entitled to a total of $13,691.49, which is composed of $13,477.50 in attorney fees, $167.78 in attorney expenses and Sytel's delivery expenses and copy charges of $46.21, as necessarily and reasonably incurred in filing and pursuing the protest. 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). _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge I concur: _________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL HYATT, Board Judge, concurring. I concur in the result reached by the majority because no amount is awarded for salary or salary-related costs of the protester's in-house personnel. In my view, such costs should not be awarded regardless of the level of supporting documentation provided. See Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C- REM(9835), 95-1 BCA 65 (DeGraff, J., dissenting). ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge