___________________________________ GRANTED IN PART: September 11, 1995 ___________________________________ GSBCA 13243-C(12975-P) OCTEL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Applicant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. J. Randolph MacPherson and Richard D. Lieberman of Sullivan & Worcester, Washington, DC, counsel for Applicant. John Cornell and Wendy Nevett Bazil, Office of the General Counsel, General Services Administration, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On April 14, 1995, Octel Communications Corporation filed this application for the recovery of its costs of filing and pursuing the underlying protest which the Board had granted. As amended, Octel seeks to recover $84,422.68 for fees and disbursements charged by retained counsel. The respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), does not object to the requested award. The Board grants reimbursement of $76,309.43. The Board disallows particular amounts--those associated with a portion of hourly fees not supported by the record; per minute charges for use of a CD-ROM database; and overtime charges for a paralegal. Further, the Board awards less than the amount requested for the preparation and filing of the cost application, and awards a reasonable amount for such services. Findings of Fact 1. On November 21, 1994, the Board granted Octel's protest underlying this cost application. Octel Communications Corp. v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12975-P, 95-1 BCA 27,315, 1994 BPD 270. The Board concluded that the agency lacked the authority to satisfy voice mail requirements through contract modifications; the requirements did not fall within the scope of the contract the agency was attempting utilize as its vehicle. 2. On April 14, 1995, Octel filed its application to recover costs of filing and pursuing the protest (including the cost application). It supplemented its request on June 8 with additional supporting documentation. By filing of May 5, the applicant withdrew its request for in-house personnel costs and the agency withdrew its objection to the request for fees and expenses incurred in the preparation of the cost application. 3. The applicant seeks to recover its costs for work from a law firm--fees (hours of effort charged at given rates) and expenses. It segregates costs between those incurred in filing and pursuing the protest ($62,433.25 in fees, $13,209.37 in expenses) and in preparing and filing the cost application ($8,555.25 in fees, $224.81 in expenses). 4. The supporting documentation includes itemized descriptions of work performed by two attorneys and a paralegal on given days and the number of hours expended. Application, Exhibit A. In a bill, dated November 30, 1994, the law firm charges for legal services rendered through October 31. The itemized efforts of the paralegal total 47.6 hours; the firm billed the client for 53.1 hours at $85 per hour--the amount for which the applicant seeks reimbursement. The record does not support reimbursement for these unitemized 5.5 hours at the hourly rate. The remaining fees related to pursuing the protest are reasonable in terms of time expended and rates charged. 5. The applicant seeks to recover a total of $13,209.37 in expenses it relates to filing and pursuing the protest. The expenses are for photocopying; telecopying/facsimile; "Federal Express"/document delivery; telephone; local transportation; out- of-town travel; transcripts; secretarial and support staff overtime; and database legal research. The charges for all but the final two itemized categories are for expenses and at rates and total amounts which the Board finds to be reimbursable. The identified amounts are related to the protest and reasonable. 6. In support of the request to recover $1,315, the law firm's charge for secretarial and support staff overtime, the applicant has included an affidavit of the law firm's office manager, who avers that, with respect to our costs of secretarial and staff overtime, all secretarial and paralegal staff members of [the firm] are paid either 1.5 (normal overtime) or 2.0 (Sundays, legal holidays, after midnight) times their individual salary and all clients are billed a standard hourly amount of $30.00 per hour for overtime work. Dependent upon the employee's salary, therefore, the amounts billed to a client may slightly exceed, or fall slightly short of, actual costs. Application, Exhibit C. The itemized entries encompass paralegal overtime efforts of $322.50, although on only one of the three days was work in excess of eight hours devoted to this protest. 7. The itemized database legal research expense, for filing and pursuing the protest, includes a total charge of $172 by the law firm for use of a database on CD-ROM. From the record, it appears that the database is resident at the law firm. The charge of $2 per minute ($120 per hour) is in addition to the hourly charge for the paralegal doing the research. The record does not indicate or suggest that the firm incurred a cost with each use of the database, or that the cost of the database would vary because of use. The record is devoid of explanation as to how the per minute charge was derived, beyond an affidavit of the law firm's office manager, who avers that "all of the disbursements or expense items listed on the invoices . . . are recorded and billed at actual cost or our best estimate thereof. No additional profit or markup amounts are added to these costs or expenses." Application, Exhibit C. There is no separate charge for each book opened by the paralegal or partner during the course of filing and pursuing the protest. 8. The applicant seeks to recover $8,555.25 in law firm fees and $224.81 in law firm expenses for the preparation and filing of the application for recovery of costs. The documentation supporting the application largely consists of law firm bills to the client and documentation in support of the bills. A portion of the supporting documentation relates to the now-withdrawn claim for costs of in-house efforts. The total charge is unreasonably high to recover under a cost application simply for law firm billings. Rather, the Board finds that $1,500 represents a reasonable amount of law firm charges (utilizing partner and paralegal efforts at their respective rates) to prepare the necessary cost application. 9. Of the requested expenses, $96 are attributed to CD-ROM database research at $2 per minute, similar to the charges discussed in Finding 7. The remaining expenses (photocopying; telecopying/facsimile; "Federal Express"/document delivery; and on-line legal research) are reasonable, related to the preparation and filing of the cost application, and of the variety which the Board finds to be reimbursable. Discussion The applicant prevailed as the protester in the underlying protest. It is appropriate for the protester to recover its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing the protest. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). As determined in the findings, the costs attributed to filing and pursuing the protest are reasonable and reimbursable with some exceptions. Unsubstantiated efforts of the paralegal are not reasonable. The record does not demonstrate the reasonableness of charges for use of a CD-ROM database. The record does not attempt to differentiate the database from books in the library or overhead costs which are traditionally factored into the fees of attorneys (and paralegals). As to the charged overtime costs, the record does not suggest that the law firm incurred costs of $85 per hour for the paralegal at either straight time or overtime. Further, neither the record nor Board experience over the ten plus years of protest practice substantiates reimbursement of $115 per hour of paralegal effort ($85 per hour plus the $30 overtime charge) or overtime surcharges for a paralegal as representative of the practice of firms in this area. It is not reasonable for the Government to reimburse the protester for these paralegal overtime charges of $322.50. As determined in the findings, the costs attributed to preparing and filing the cost application are excessive, particularly when the applicant has withdrawn its request for in- house costs. It is not reasonable to reimburse the applicant for law firm fees in excess of $1,500 for the activities at issue, when the supporting documentation primarily pre-dated the cost application and would have been prepared in the normal course of client billings. The requested expenses charged, with the exception of CD-ROM database charges, are reasonable and reimbursable. Decision The Board GRANTS IN PART the application, as amended. Of the requested recovery, the Board does not authorize reimbursement for (1) 5.5 hours of unsubstantiated paralegal efforts, in the amount of $467.50; (2) law firm charges of $268 for the use of a CD-ROM database (3) overtime charges for the paralegal, in the amount of $322.50; and (4) portions of the cost application in the amount of $7,055.25. Thus, the Board denies $8,113.25 of the requested $84,422.68, and grants $76,309.43. The awarded amount is to be paid in accordance with statute. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C); 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988). ________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge We concur: _________________________ _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge Board Judge