___________________________________ GRANTED IN PART: January 26, 1996 ___________________________________ GSBCA 13195-C(13137-P) VOLT/ALPHANUMERIC PUBLICATION SYSTEMS, Applicant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. Thomas F. Williamson, Robert M. Moore, and Gerald T. Nielsen of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC; and Howard B. Weinreich of Volt Information Sciences, Inc., New York, NY, counsel for Applicant. Peter D. Butt, Jr., and Jeffrey A. Mansfield, Office of Counsel, Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Department of the Navy, San Diego, CA; and Anita M. LeBlanc, Office of General Counsel, Naval Supply Systems Command, Department of the Navy, Arlington, VA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BORWICK, WILLIAMS, and GOODMAN. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Background On December 30, 1994, Volt/Alphanumeric Publication Systems (Volt) filed a protest challenging the Department of the Navy's (Navy's) award of a contract to Grumman Data Systems Corporation (Grumman). The contract was for photocomposition, digitized artwork, and maintenance of Navy Planned Maintenance System and Engineering Operations Sequencing System databases on contractor software. Volt/Alphanumeric Publication Systems v. Department of the Navy, GSBCA 13137-P, 1995 BPD 25 (Jan. 23, 1995). Volt claimed that: (1) the Navy improperly evaluated Grumman's technical proposal; (2) Grumman's price was unrealistic and unreasonable, and the Navy failed to perform a proper analysis of Grumman's cost proposal; and (3) the officials who awarded the contract "felt pressure" to award the contract to an offeror other than Volt. Applicant's Motion for Award of Protest Costs at 3. On January 19, 1995, Volt requested leave to withdraw the protest as a result of a settlement. In the settlement agreement the Navy acknowledged that the contract was improperly awarded. The Navy agreed to issue an amendment to the solicitation revising the specifications, reopening discussions, and calling for best and final offers. Applicant's Motion for Award of Protest Costs, Exhibit 1. On February 22, 1995, Volt filed a motion to recover $138,412.75 incurred in pursuing its protest. The Navy does not oppose the motion. Volt requested reimbursement of fees for outside counsel, in-house counsel, an expert witness, and preparation of the motion for costs. On June 19, 1995, the Board requested additional documentation for certain requests.[foot #] 1 On July 13, 1995, Volt submitted the additional documentation. Discussion The Brooks Act authorizes this Board to award protest costs to an "appropriate interested party." 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). Although the Navy is not contesting the award of costs, this Board must "independently determine that reimbursement is appropriate." Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C-REM(9835-P), 95-1 BCA 27,575, at 137,425, 1995 BPD 65, at 10; SMS Data Products Group, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA 10783-C(10644-P)-REIN, 93-1 BCA 25,427, at 126,645, 1992 BPD 238, at 3 (only reasonable costs supported by sufficient documentation can be awarded). In the instant case, we have examined Volt's motion for costs and documentation and have concluded that most of the requested costs should be reimbursed. We find that counsel's hourly rates and number of hours expended are reasonable and reimbursable, as are the rates charged by Volt's expert. However, portions of the disbursements cannot be awarded. Volt requested reimbursement for airfare from Washington, DC, to Los Angeles, California, for travel in business class. The Board will only allow recovery of coach-class airfare. Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GSBCA 10601-C-R(10381-P), 95-2 BCA 27,828, at 138,744, 1995 BPD 135, at 3-4 (granting reimbursement for coach class instead of first class airfare). Thus, reimbursement for ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Specifically, the Board requested further documentation of expert fees and expenses, travel expenses, business meals, and secretarial time. Board Order (June 19, 1995). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- the cost of two plane trips totalling $4,212 is reduced to $2,852, the cost for the same flights in coach class. In the instant case the cost of two business meals exceeded amounts typically claimed or reimbursed, so we have reduced the amounts of those meals to amounts recoverable by government personnel travelling to a given locale, applying the standard per diem rate. Thus, we limit the per meal recovery to $38, the maximum allowable under the federal travel regulations for Los Angeles, California. Applicant claimed a total of $663.87 for business meals, and we award $470.59. Finally, we deny reimbursement for movies in the amount of $31.80 and valet/laundry services in the amount of $43.65[foot #] 2 at the hotel in Los Angeles. Sterling, 95-2 BCA at 138,744, 1995 BPD 135, at 4 (disallowing reimbursement for laundry expenses). Volt is awarded the following costs: Outside Counsel $104,833.64 ($106,439.37 - $1,605.73)[foot #] 3 In-house Counsel $ 7,527.73 Expert $ 24,422.65 ($24,445.65 - $23)[foot #] 4 Total $136,784.02 Decision For the reasons stated above, we GRANT IN PART applicant's request for costs in the amount of $136,784.02. This award is to 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). ____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge We concur: ____________________________ ____________________________ ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Twenty-three dollars of these valet charges were incurred by the expert. [foot #] 3 This reduction represents the reductions in air fare ($1,360) and meals ($193.28), and the deduction of movies ($31.80) and valet/laundry services ($20.65). [foot #] 4 This reduction represents the valet charges. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- ANTHONY S. BORWICK ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge Board Judge