GRANTED IN PART: March 23, 1995 GSBCA 12923-C(12834-P) SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. James J. McCullough, Joel R. Feidelman, Deneen J. Melander, and Lawrence E. Ruggiero of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Ellen D. Washington, M. Elizabeth Hancock, David P. Andross, Thomas L. Frankfurt, Stirling Adams, and Lis B. Young, Information Technology Acquisition Center, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), DEVINE, and VERGILIO. DANIELS, Board Judge. On September 30, 1994, we held that the terms of an agreement settling a protest by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) against the award of a contract by the Department of the Navy made clear that SAIC had prevailed in the case and was consequently an appropriate interested party to be awarded its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. We awarded to SAIC the sum of $179,554.42, which represented all the attorney fees and disbursements (other than expert fees) which the firm had claimed that it had incurred. Science Applications International Corp. v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 12923- C(12834-P), 94-3 BCA 27,262, 1994 BPD 205. In that decision, we did not rule on SAIC's application for the award of an additional $55,776.27, the fees charged by expert consultants who were engaged to assist in the pursuit of the protest. We noted that in Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had instructed us to determine anew whether this sort of cost would be reimbursable under the statute which authorizes us to award protest costs, the Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act, 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). We asked the parties to brief this issue. We have now determined that consultants' fees are reimburs- able. Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C-REM(9835-P), 1995 BPD 65 (Mar. 10, 1995). The Navy does not object to the award of these fees incurred by SAIC. We find that the fees were reasonably incurred and appropriately documented. We award these costs. On October 25, 1994, SAIC supplemented its application for costs to request reimbursement for $14,925.50 in attorney fees and $1,023.07 in disbursements for document duplication and transmission, computerized legal research, and other minor items, which were incurred in pursuit of the protest and this cost motion but had not been posted to counsel's books at the time the initial application was submitted. The Navy does not object to the award of these costs. Although the costs are documented, we grant only a portion of them. Of the total, $817.50 in attorney fees and $569.77 in disbursements were incurred prior to the date on which the Board issued its interlocutory decision in this case. SAIC said, in making its initial application for cost reimbursement, that it might amend the application shortly to cover costs which had been incurred but not yet posted to counsel's books. Nevertheless, by the time we closed the record preparatory to issuing the interlocutory decision, six weeks later, protester had not filed such an amendment. Protester did not object to the closing of the record. The additional items for which protester now seeks reimbursement are minor expenses which are routinely posted to books on a regular basis, at least monthly. We consider that the October 25 amendment was filed after the matter of routine attorney fees and disbursements incurred in pursuit of the protest had already been resolved. We therefore deny the request for reimbursement of these costs. SAIC seeks $12,240.50 in attorney fees and $432.30 in disbursements associated with the writing of a brief requested by the Board addressing whether fees charged by expert consultants ought to be reimbursable under the Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act, 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). Protester's counsel devoted 58.5 hours to writing this brief. In our judgment, this amount of time was excessive, given the nature of the subject and the extent of the analysis presented. We award what seems to us an appropriate sum, $5,000, for the writing of the brief. The final $1,867.50 in attorney fees and $21.00 in disbursements relates to the compilation and drafting of the amendment to the cost application. Had the amendment been pertinent exclusively to a modest amount of attorney time and computerized legal research necessary to write the brief, the task of compiling and drafting this document would have been quite simple. We award only $500 for this work. Decision We GRANT IN PART the remaining portion of SAIC's application and the amendment thereto. SAIC is awarded $55,776.27 in consultant fees and $5,500 in attorney fees and disbursements. The total amount awarded is $61,276.27. 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 I concur: _________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE Board Judge VERGILIO, Board Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur with the conclusion of the majority to grant reimbursement of $55,776.27 for consultant costs incurred by the protester. I dissent from the conclusion to grant reimbursement of any of the associated attorney fees and expenses. I concur with the majority and would deny the portion of the request, which amounts to $1,387.27, for costs incurred prior to September 30 (the date of the decision on attorney fees and expenses) for filing and pursuing the underlying protest and cost case. The protester could have requested the record to remain open and delayed the award of its costs; it did not elect such a course of action. The Board has already resolved that portion of this case. No persuasive rationale has been put forward which justifies the revisiting of that award. The prior award forecloses the protester from now seeking reimbursement for costs it could have sought earlier. A portion of the requested attorney fees and disbursements (totalling $12,672.80) relates to the preparation and submission of the additional brief on reimbursement of consultant costs. The brief does not represent work effort justifying the reimbursement. The initial request for reimbursement was filed after the decision had been issued in Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. Goldin, 16 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The subsequent brief sheds no new light on the resolution of the consultant fee issue. Accordingly, I would deny this portion of the request. The final portion of the requested attorney fees and disbursements (totalling $1,888.50) relates to the preparation and submission of the enlarged request for costs. Consistent with denying the request for the underlying costs, I would also deny the request for reimbursement of the costs of putting the request together. _________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge