GRANTED IN PART: September 14, 1992 
                                                       
 
 
                         GSBCA 11399-C(11250-P)
 
 
                      ASPECT TELECOMMUNICATIONS, 
 
                                           Protester,
 
                                   v.
 
                      DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
 
                                           Respondent.
 
        David M. Nadler  and C. Patteson Cardwell, IV, of Dickstein,
   Shapiro & Morin, Vienna, VA, counsel for Protester.
 
        Donald M. Suica, Dennis M. Ferrara, and Terrence P. Dermott,
   Office  of Chief Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
   the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent.
 
   Before  Board  Judges  LaBELLA, Acting  Chief  Judge,  NEILL, and
   HYATT.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        Pursuant to  Rule 35  and 40  U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C)  (1988),
   Aspect  Telecommunications (Aspect) has timely filed a motion for
   the costs of filing and pursuing its protest  of a procurement by
   the   Internal  Revenue  Service   (IRS  or  respondent).     The
   procurement  was  for  automatic  call  distributor  systems  for
   various taxpayer  assistance calling  sites.   The Board  granted
   Aspect's protest on all counts.  Aspect Telecommunications, GSBCA
   11250-P, 91-3 BCA   24,199, 1991 BPD   161.  
 
        Aspect seeks $138,690.02 as the costs of filing and pursuing
   its  protest, including  the  costs  incurred  in  preparing  and
   defending this cost motion.  This includes charges by its outside
   counsel and costs  incurred by Aspect itself.   The billings from
   Aspect's outside  counsel  include  charges  for  attorney  time,
   photocopying, secretarial overtime, facsimile transmission, local
   transportation,  messenger  service,  computer  research,  meals,
   postage, and Federal Express delivery.  These costs were incurred
   by counsel and separately billed to Aspect.  Aspect also incurred
   costs   for   employee   time,   travel,   lodging,   meals,  and
   miscellaneous  costs.     The  total  request  consists   of  the
   following:
 
 
             Attorney fees
                  Attorney time                 $112,748.75
                  Attorney disbursements          12,753.33
             Employee costs
                  Non-attorney employee costs      9,971.06
                  Disbursements                    3,216.88
                                                $138,690.02
 
        Respondent  does not contest Aspect's status as a prevailing
   party; respondent contests only the amount Aspect should recover.
   In three separate submissions, respondent  disputes $36,089.60 of
   the  amount requested  on  various  legal  and  factual  grounds.
   Aspect  maintains  that  it  is  entitled  to the  entire  amount
   requested   less   $776.57[foot #] 1   of   overhead   that   was
   added to  computer research  charges which  Aspect has,  however,
   withdrawn in the face of respondent's objections.  
     
        The term "attorney fees" is recognized to include  more than
   the work personally  performed by a member of  the bar.  "Rather,
   the term must refer  to a reasonable fee for the  work product of
   an attorney.  Thus, the fee  must take into account the work  not
   only  of   attorneys,  but  also   of  secretaries,   messengers,
   librarians, janitors, and  others whose labor contributes  to the
   work product for which an attorney bills her client; and  it must
   also take  account of  other expenses and  profit."   Missouri v.
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1   In its initial motion, protester sought $776.57
   for overhead added  by counsel to the cost  of computerized legal
   research.  The  alleged reason for this overhead  charge was that
   it reflected  additional costs  incurred  in maintaining  on-site
   facilities  for these services.   Protester's Motion,  Exhibit B,
   Attachment  13.   Respondent  objected on  the  ground that  this
   charge  is part  of the  incidental  cost of  doing business  and
   should  not be  separately assessed.    Respondent's Response  to
   Protester's Motion for Costs at 2.  Protester has not denied this
   fact.   Instead, in  its reply to  respondent's first  objection,
   Aspect withdrew its  request for the $776.57.   In supplements to
   its  original  claim, however,  Aspect  added  the same  type  of
   charge,  this time in the amount  of $220.05, to the claimed cost
   of  additional  computerized  legal  research.    Respondent  has
   objected to the additional amount  for the same reason given with
   regard to $776.57 in the  original claim.  Respondent's Answer to
   Protester's  Supplement  II  to  Its  Motion   for  Costs  at  6;
   Respondent's Answer to  Protester's Supplement III to  its Motion
   for Costs at 4.  Aspect has not commented on respondent's renewed
   objection.    In view  of  Aspect's  withdrawal  of  the  $776.57
   originally  sought  and  its  reticence  to address  respondent's
   renewed  objection,  we  sustain respondent's  objection  to  the
   additional charges and  deny the $220.05  sought by protester  in
   its supplemental claim.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   Jenkins,  491  U.S.   274,  285  (1989);  accord   West  Virginia
   University  Hospitals,  Inc.  v. Casey,  111  S.  Ct. 1138,  1147
   (1991);  Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics &
   Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C(9835-P), 1992 BPD   141  (May
   22, 1992)  (full Board).  In addition,  an award of attorney fees
   encompasses those reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses
   of  providing a  lawyer's services  that are  not covered  by the
   hourly rate because  they cannot always  be anticipated with  any
   certainty in a  given case.  Bennett  v. Department of Navy,  699
   F.2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
 
 
        The  billings from  Aspect's  outside  counsel are  properly
   considered attorney fees  pursuant to the standard  enunciated in
   Jenkins, Bennett, and  Sterling.  These costs include charges for
   attorney  time,  secretarial  overtime,  facsimile  transmission,
   local  transportation,  messenger   service,  computer  research,
   copying, meals,  postage, and  Federal Express  delivery.   These
   costs were incurred by  counsel and separately billed to  Aspect;
   they were  not included in the  attorney's hourly rate.   We find
   that the attorney  billings and hourly  rates are reasonable  and
   commensurate with  other firms practicing  before the Board.   We
   discuss below only those costs to which respondent objects.      
 
 
 
   Secretarial Overtime
 
        Aspect seeks reimbursement for secretarial overtime incurred
   by its retained counsel during the  prosecution of the underlying
   protest, preparation of  its initial cost motion, and  one of its
   three supplements to the cost motion.  Respondent objects to $154
   of these overtime  charges incurred while preparing  a supplement
   to the cost  motion.  Respondent contends that  while overtime is
   appropriate when the parties are laboring under  the time demands
   accompanying  protest litigation, it is inappropriate for work on
   the cost motion supplement which  did not have a filing deadline.
   Respondent also asserts that secretarial services are customarily
   considered  part  of  overhead and  factored  into  an attorney's
   hourly rate.
 
        Respondent  is  correct  in  that  secretarial  expenses  of
   outside  counsel are considered overhead expenses and included in
   Aspect's  attorney's hourly wage.   See React  Corp., GSBCA 9530-
   C(9456-P), 88-3  BCA   21,026, at  106,210, 1988 BPD   161,  at 4
   (attorney's  hourly rate said to include secretarial expenses and
   the usual  overhead expenses of  running a law firm);  Bennett v.
   Department of  Navy, 699 F.2d  1140, 1145  n. 5 (Fed.  Cir. 1983)
   ("Examples of expenses  that would be covered by  the hourly rate
   include  fixed overhead such  as utilities, rent  and secretarial
   expenses.")   Aspect is  not, however, seeking  reimbursement for
   the normal  secretarial costs  incurred by  its outside  counsel,
   only the  overtime costs for which  it was billed in  addition to
   its attorney's hourly rate.  It is reasonable that these costs be
   excluded from an attorney's hourly rate because such costs cannot
   be anticipated  with certainty in  any given case.   Cf. Bennett,
   699  F.2d  at 1145.    We are  untroubled  by the  fact  that the
   overtime  objected to was incurred preparing  a supplement to the
   cost motion.  The costs were billed to  Aspect in accordance with
   its counsel's billing practice.   Therefore, we see no  reason to
   delve into outside  counsel's time management, in  this instance,
   when such costs  were actually billed to Aspect and the amount is
   reasonable.
 
 
        Aspect's request for secretarial  overtime costs incurred by
   its outside counsel is granted.          
 
 
   Inter-library Loan
 
        Aspect seeks reimbursement for the expense of borrowing four
   volumes  of legislative  history from  three  different area  law
   firms that participate, along with Aspect's counsel, in an inter-
   library  loan  program.     Aspect's  counsel,  through   a  firm
   librarian,  made  four  separate  requests  for  the  legislative
   history pertaining to three different public laws.  The librarian
   spent one  half-hour processing each  request for a total  of two
   hours.  Respondent objects to one and one-half hours on the basis
   that  the librarian  should have  been able  to process  all four
   request at the  same time thus reducing the total  time by three-
   fourths.  It was necessary,  however, to borrow the material from
   three different firms.   Therefore, respondent's  suggestion that
   only  one request  was necessary  is  unsupported.   We find  the
   librarian's hourly rate and time spent reasonable and grant these
   costs.
 
 
   Facsimile Costs
 
        Aspect is seeking reimbursement for facsimile charges at the
   rate which  it was  billed by  its outside  counsel --  $1.50 per
   page.  Respondent  objects to these costs  citing HSQ Technology,
   Inc.,  GSBCA 10054-C(9985-P), 89-3 BCA   22,047, at 110,926, 1989
   BPD   185,  at 3, for  the proposition that compensation  for the
   use  of  office   equipment,  such  as  facsimile   machines,  is
   inappropriate.  Respondent continues that facsimile transmissions
   are  reimbursable  only  to  the extent  that  they  involve  the
   additional  expense  of  a  long distance  phone  charge  and the
   decision to  use facsimile  was reasonable.   Respondent  further
   points out that Aspect makes a separate request for long distance
   phone service and, therefore, should not be allowed an additional
   recovery.
 
        The  Board  awards reasonable  facsimile costs  as "attorney
   fees" if  such costs  are not included  in the  attorney's hourly
   rate.    See  Sterling  Federal,  1992  BPD    141,  at  4-5,  11
   (facsimile  transmission  costs  awarded).     This  practice  is
   consistent  with the  guidance provided by  the Supreme  Court in
   Jenkins and our appellate authority in Bennett.  
 
        Respondent's  reliance on HSQ Technology in the present case
   is  misplaced.   In  HSQ  Technology,  we  denied a  request  for
   facsimile  costs at  a flat  rate of  $3 per  page "because  such
   charges are based upon a flat or uniform rate irrespective of the
   actual cost  of  transmission."   In  the  final  analysis,  that
   decision stands for the proposition that where a law firm bills a
   client for  items other than  attorneys' time by imposing  a high
   fee that  bears no  relation to the  commercial charges  the firm
   paid for  the items,  we will not  award reimbursement  for those
   items.   In this case, the  per page rate is  half that sought in
   HSQ Technology.   In addition,  the record tends to  confirm that
   included  in  this   rate  of  $1.50  per  page   is  the  actual
   telecommunication    cost.[foot #] 2       While   it    is   not
   altogether clear how the figure of  $1.50 has been arrived at, we
   nonetheless find it is based,  at least in part, on actual  costs
   and, even more importantly, within the commercial  range for such
   services.  See SMS Data Products Group, Inc. v. Department of the
   Treasury, GSBCA 10783-C(10644-P), slip op. at 9 (Sept. 10, 1992).
   Aspect's request for facsimile costs is, therefore, granted.
 
            
   Redacting Cost Motion
           
        Aspect's initial cost  motion was submitted in  its entirety
   as protected  material.  In  the order docketing this  cost case,
   the  Board  noted that  cost  motions are  normally  not accorded
   protective  status and, therefore,  ordered Aspect to  show cause
   why its motion and supporting  documentation should be treated as
   protected.  Aspect responded, stating that the cost motion itself
   need not  be  protected,  but  that portions  of  the  supporting
   documentation  that  are  proprietary  in  nature  should  remain
   subject to  the protective  order.   Aspect submitted a  redacted
   copy of  this documentation  with specific comment  as to  why it
   should remain protected.[foot #] 3
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 2  This  is apparent from  comparing the time  of a
   facsimile  transmission noted  in the  documents  supporting such
   charges with the  log of telephone  charges which also  indicates
   the time of each phone call.  A sampling of these charges reveals
   that there are no corresponding phone charges at the same time of
   day  as  a  facsimile transmission.    From  this comparison,  we
   conclude that  the facsimile charge  includes the  cost of  phone
   service for each transmission.
 
        [foot #] 3      Protester   also   designated  portions   of
   supporting documents in its supplemental costs motions -- motions
   I-III  -- as  protected material  consistent  with the  rationale
   utilized in the redacted version of its initial cost motion.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
        Aspect  seeks $2,508.75  in  attorney fees  as  the cost  of
   redacting      portions       of      its       initial      cost
   motion.[foot #] 4        Respondent    cites    Rocky    Mountain
   Trading  Co., GSBCA 10047-C(10027-P), 91-2 BCA   23,796, 1991 BPD
     40, for the  proposition that Aspect  should not recover  costs
   associated with correcting what could have been done correctly in
   the first instance.  We agree with respondent.
 
        Our decisions establish that the costs of pursuing a protest
   are generally not the sort of information considered subject to a
   protective order unless  a party offers  a specific and  detailed
   justification  for each  and  every  item  restricted.    Federal
   Computer Corp.,  GSBCA 11218-C(11053-P),  91-3  BCA   24,154,  at
   120,866, 1991 BPD   151, at 2.  See also Digital Equipment Corp.,
   GSBCA 9285-C(9131-P),  88-2 BCA    20,775, at  104,973, 1988  BPD
     88, at 3;  Wang Laboratories, Inc., GSBCA  9288-C(9131-P), 88-2
   BCA   20,774, at 104,971, 1988 BPD   89, at 2;  ICF Severn, Inc.,
   91-3 BCA   24,058, at 120,445, 1991 BPD   120, at 2. 
 
          Aspect cites Computer  Consoles, Inc., GSBCA  8450-C(8134-
   P),  87-1 BCA    19,440, 1986  BPD    183, as  support for  these
   costs.  This case is inapposite.  In Computer Consoles, 91-2  BCA
   at 98,256, 1986 BPD at 7, the Board awarded a protester the costs
   of  participating in a conference concerning an alleged violation
   of the  protective  order by  another  litigant because  such  an
   effort  was part  and parcel  of  the total  effort necessary  to
   prevail.   In this  case, however,  submitting  a protected  cost
   motion was unnecessary and unrelated to the successful resolution
   of  the protest  or the  cost  motion.   Board precedent  clearly
   establishes  that cost  motions  are  generally  not  covered  by
   protective  orders  unless  a  protester  makes  a  specific  and
   detailed justification for  each item restricted.   Aspect failed
   to   provide   any   rationale  for   restricting   its   initial
   submission.[foot #] 5       Thus,   under    the   circumstances,
   we find these costs unreasonable and deny them in their entirety.
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 4       In  Respondent's   Answer   to  Protester's
   Supplement II to Its Motion for Costs, Respondent objects to only
   $1,723.75 in  attorney  fees relating  to  the redaction  of  the
   initial  cost  motion.    However,  respondent  appears  to  have
   overlooked  an  additional  $785 in  attorney  fees  which Aspect
   claims to have incurred in  conjunction with the redaction of its
   cost  motion.   The  additional  attorney  fees are  recorded  in
   Aspect's Supplement I to the Cost Motion (i.e. 2.75 hours at $190
   per hour incurred  from August  26 to August  30, 1991, and  2.50
   hours at  $105 per  hour incurred  from August  26 to  August 31,
   1991.)  
 
        [foot #] 5   We  note that Aspect's three supplements to its
   cost motion were redacted when first submitted and that the costs
   associated  with these redactions  -- presumably included  in the
   request for  costs incurred preparing each motion  -- are awarded
   in full.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   Suspension of Cost Motion
 
 
         After  the  Board  granted   Aspect's  protest,  respondent
   requested the Department of Justice to appeal the decision to the
   United States  Court  of Appeals  for  the Federal  Circuit  (the
   Federal Circuit).   While  this request  was pending,  respondent
   moved for a  suspension of the  cost case.   Aspect opposed  this
   motion.   The Board  granted respondent's  motion suspending  the
   cost  case  given   the  unique   nature  of   the  issue   under
   consideration for appeal and the uncertainty as to how this issue
   would affect Aspect's status as a prevailing party.
 
        Aspect  seeks  $1,880  in  attorney fees  as  the  costs  of
   replying   to  respondent's   motion   to  suspend   proceedings.
   Respondent  objects  to  these  costs  contending  that  Aspect's
   response to  the motion  to suspend was  unjustified and  did not
   further Aspect's  interests.   Respondent continues  that it  was
   obligated to notify the Board  of the possible appeal and request
   a  suspension in order to avoid  needless litigation.  Respondent
   also notes that the motion to suspend was granted and, therefore,
   Aspect should  not  be  reimbursed for  costs  incurred  on  this
   ancillary issue on which it did not prevail.
     
        We  find  Aspect's   response  to  the  motion   to  suspend
   justified.  The Board authorized Aspect's response.  While Aspect
   was not successful in opposing the motion, we do not consider the
   motion to suspend  to be  a significant  issue readily  severable
   from Aspect's effort to recover its  costs of protest.  Cf. Rocky
   Mountain Trading Co., Systems Division, GSBCA 9750-C(9569-P), 90-
   3 BCA   23,040, at 115,675, 1990 BPD   147, at  2 (costs incurred
   in the unsuccessful  pursuit of both a significant  and a readily
   severable issue may be denied).  Aspect's  response was justified
   given  the unusual  procedural nature  of  this cost  case.   The
   motion to suspend was filed  before the Department of Justice had
   determined whether or  not to appeal the Board's  decision to the
   Federal  Circuit.   Generally,  parties  notify the  Board  of an
   appeal  after the  appeal is  actually filed;  at that  point the
   Board  dismisses  the  cost   motion  without  prejudice  pending
   resolution of the  appeal.  Planning Research Corp., GSBCA 10387-
   C-R(10100-P), 91-2 BCA   23,966, at 119,971, 1991 BPD   97, at 2-
   3.  Board  procedures are such that respondent  was not obligated
   to  file its  motion to  suspend before  the appeal  was actually
   filed.   The  early filing of  a motion to  suspend precluded the
   normal dismissal without prejudice and prompted Aspect to file an
   opposition which we consider justified in such a situation.  
     
          We  therefore  grant   these  costs   as  reasonably   and
   necessarily incurred in pursuing this cost motion.
   Appeal Costs 
 
 
        Aspect  requests $4,867.16 in  costs for preparing  a letter
   trying to dissuade  the Department of Justice from  appealing the
   protest  decision.  The Department of Justice ultimately appealed
   the  protest to the Federal  Circuit.  Aspect  also seeks $545 in
   attorney fees as  the cost of filing a certificate of interest at
   the Federal Circuit.  Additional costs were not incurred  because
   the Department of Justice voluntarily withdrew the appeal.
 
        Addressing the costs  incurred on appeal,  we note that  the
   full Board  recently held that  such costs  are not  recoverable.
   Sysorex  Information Systems, Inc. v. Department of the Treasury,
   10781-C(10642-P)-REIN (Sept. 8,  1992) (full Board).   Therefore,
   Aspect's  request  for  $545  in   attorney  fees  for  filing  a
   certificate of interest with the Federal Circuit is denied.
 
        We likewise deny Aspect's request for costs incurred writing
   the letter to  the Department of Justice.  In  Sysorex, we stated
   that since our statute does  not expressly authorize an award for
   fees  incurred in  a  judicial  action we  could  not award  fees
   incurred on appeal to the Federal Circuit.  Following Sysorex, we
   concluded that our  statute does not  authorize payment for  fees
   incurred that are unrelated to the resolution of a protest before
   the Board.   Sysorex,  slip op.  at 7.   Aspect's  letter to  the
   Department  of Justice is clearly unrelated to Board proceedings.
   If anything,  the letter  relates more to  the appeal  before the
   Federal  Circuit.   Aspect's  request for  $4,867.16  to draft  a
   letter to the Department of Justice is, therefore, denied.       
     
 
          
   Expense of Cost Motion
 
        As a final objection, respondent contests the reasonableness
   of the number of  hours expended preparing Aspect's cost  motion,
   especially since  Aspect's status as  a prevailing party  was not
   contested.  Respondent  contends that Aspect  is entitled to  the
   costs  of   providing  sufficient   documentation,  preparing   a
   certification,  and the  costs of  all  disbursements but  is not
   entitled  to the  full amount  requested for  legal  research and
   preparing the motion.  Aspect maintains that it had the burden to
   establish  both entitlement to  and the  amount of  the requested
   costs and,  therefore, the  level  of effort  expended and  costs
   incurred  were reasonable.   Aspect  continues, citing  Berkshire
   Computer Products, GSBCA 10452-C(10338-P), 90-2 BCA   22,734,  at
   114,124,  1990 BPD    45, at  2,  for the  proposition that  this
   burden must be met even if its cost motion is uncontested because
   it is the Board, not the parties, that determines if a cost award
   is appropriate.
     
        It  is well established that an appropriate prevailing party
   may  recoup the  expenses  incurred  in  preparing,  filing,  and
   defending a cost motion before the Board.  Aspect is also correct
   that it  has the burden to  establish its status  as a prevailing
   party and  the amount  of costs  incurred even  if its motion  is
   uncontested.   However, it  is also well  established that  a fee
   request should exclude  "hours that are excessive,  redundant, or
   otherwise unnecessary," Hensley  v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.  424, 434
   (1983),  and  that the  Board  has  discretion  to reduce  a  fee
   request.   See Crumbaker  v. Merit Systems  Protection Board, 781
   F.2d  191, 195  (Fed.  Cir.  1986) (case  remanded  to the  Merit
   Systems Protection Board for a "concise but clear explanation" of
   the reasons supporting the reduced award).  We find  a portion of
   the hours claimed  for preparation of  the cost motion  excessive
   and  redundant  and,  therefore, reduce  the  award  as explained
   below.
 
 
        In  this cost  proceeding, Aspect  filed a  cost motion  and
   three    supplements   to    the   motion.[foot #] 6       Aspect
   requests   $36,855.36[foot #] 7   as    costs   incurred   solely
   in   pursuing   this   cost   motion.[foot #] 8      Under    the
   circumstances, we find this amount unreasonable.  
 
        Aspect filed a twenty-one page cost motion accompanied  by a
   separate  binder with supporting  cost documentation.   Aspect is
   requesting a  total of 157.75  hours of attorney time  to prepare
   i t s   i n i t i a l   m o t i o n   a n d   s u p p o r t i n g
   documentation.[foot #] 9      One   attorney  spent   100   hours
   preparing the motion.  This includes 34.75 hours performing legal
   research and an  additional 34.75 hours drafting,  reviewing, and
   revising  the motion.    His  remaining time  was  spent on  such
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 6    Aspect  also  filed  comments to  respondent's
   first opposition to  the cost motion and other responses relating
   to the processing of this case.
 
        [foot #] 7    In  the third supplement  to its  cost motion,
   Aspect  contends that  the  total cost  request  for filing  this
   motion  is $36,905.61.    This amount  is  overstated by  $50.25.
   Erroneously included in  this amount is $50.25  for disbursements
   incurred in processing the underlying protest.  See Supplement II
                                                   ___
   to Motion  of Protester  Aspect Telecommunications  for Award  of
   Protest Costs, Attachment 4. 
 
        [foot #] 8   Aspect incurred $83,234.56 in attorney fees and
   attorney disbursements  pursuing  the underlying  protest.    The
   amount of  fees and  disbursements incurred  preparing this  cost
   motion  is approximately forty-four  percent of the  total amount
   incurred filing and pursuing the underlying protest.  
 
        [foot #] 9    This  time  is  in  addition  to  charges  for
   attorney  and support  staff/paralegal time  spent  preparing the
   three  supplements  to the  cost  motion  and staff  charges  for
   preparing the  initial cost motion.   We have reviewed  the costs
   incurred in preparing  each of the three supplements  and all the
   charges for support staff and find these costs reasonable.  
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   pursuits as compiling cost documentation.  A more senior attorney
   is  said  to  have spent  44.75  hours  reviewing, revising,  and
   editing  the cost motion and checking  calculations.  Included in
   this time were two hours  spent reviewing sample cost motions and
   conferring  with other members of  the firm regarding cost motion
   procedures.
 
 
        We find 157.75 hours of attorney time to prepare the initial
   cost  motion excessive.    This  is  especially  true  given  the
   experience of counsel's firm with  cost motions before this Board
   and counsel's access to  sample motions.   As to the 34.75  hours
   spent on legal research before the motion was  drafted, normally,
   based on our  experience with applications for protest  costs, we
   would expect the time required to  be considerably less.  In this
   particular case,  however, given  its complexity and  protester's
   expectation of  objections from  respondent, we  are prepared  to
   recognize a maximum  of 20 hours of research  as reasonable under
   the circumstances.  We reduce, therefore, the hours requested for
   legal research by 14.75 hours.  The billing rate for the attorney
   in question was $105 per hour.  The reduction, therefore, amounts
   to $1,548.75.
 
        We also find excessive and  redundant the hours spent by two
   attorneys  drafting and  revising the  motion  and checking  cost
   calculations.    One  attorney  spent 34.75  hours  and  a second
   attorney spent 44.75  hours for a total of  79.5 hours performing
   these tasks.   This  amount does not  include the  legal research
   discussed above  or additional  attorney time  and support  staff
   time  incurred compiling  the cost  documentation  supporting the
   motion.[foot #] 10     We   conclude   that   40   hours   is   a
   reasonable amount  of  time  to  draft  the  document  which  was
   submitted     and     to     review     the     relevant     cost
   documentation.[foot #] 11        We    therefore    reduce    the
   hours  requested by 39.5  hours.   Since two  attorneys performed
   these tasks,  we reduce the  time requested for each  attorney by
   19.75  hours, half  of 39.5  hours.   Therefore, we  deduct 19.75
   hours at $105 per  hour and 19.75  hours at $190  per hour for  a
   total reduction of $5,826.25.
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 10    One attorney spent 19.5 hours assembling cost
   documentation exhibits.   An additional 32.75 hours  was spent by
   staff/paralegals   preparing   supporting   cost   documentation.
   Respondent   does  not  contest  the  number  of  hours  incurred
   preparing cost documentation.  We find these hours reasonable.
 
        [foot #] 11    We  note  that  approximately  one  third  of
   Aspect's submission was devoted to a discussion of the claimant's
   status as  a prevailing party.  While  Aspect did have the burden
   of proof on this issue, we find this level of effort unreasonable
   and  unnecessary for  this case.    The Board's  decision on  the
   underlying  merits   established  that  "protester   has  clearly
   prevailed    on   all   counts"   of   its   protest.      Aspect
                                                              ______
   Telecommunications, 91-3 BCA at 121,036, 1991 BPD at 20.    
   __________________
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
                    Employee Costs and Disbursements
 
        Aspect  seeks $9,971.06 for the costs of its employees' time
   spent  pursuing the  protest and  filing this  cost motion.   The
   explanation of  each employee's duties  reveals that none  of the
   employees are attorneys.  These costs are not taxable costs under
   28   U.S.C.    1920,  attorney's   fees,  or  bid   and  proposal
   preparation costs and are, therefore, denied pursuant to Sterling
   Federal, 1992 BPD   141, at 9-10.
 
        Aspect also  seeks $3,216.88  in disbursements  for employee
   travel, lodging, meals, and miscellaneous costs.  These costs are
   also not taxable costs as defined in  28 U.S.C.   1920.  They are
   not  witness costs  as no  witness testimony  was offered  in the
   underlying   protest.    See   28  U.S.C.    1920(3)   (fees  and
   disbursements for witnesses  are taxable costs  as limited by  28
   U.S.C.    1821 (1988);  Sterling Federal,  1992 BPD   141,  at 11
   (protester  entitled to  witness  fees  together  with  per  diem
   allowances for travel  as provided by statute.)   These costs are
   likewise denied.  Id. at 9-10.
         
                                Decision
 
        For the reasons stated, Aspect's motion is  GRANTED IN PART.
   We deny Aspect's request for the following costs:
 
                  Overhead on computer research                   $
   220.05
                  Redacting Cost Motion                    
   2,508.75
                  Appeal costs                             
   5,412.16
                  Expense of Cost Motion                   
   7,375.00
                  Employee costs
                            Non-attorney employee costs    
   9,971.06
                            Disbursements                  
   3,216.88
                                      Total Costs Denied
   $28,703.90
 
        Aspect is entitled  to an award of the  remaining costs less
   the $776.57 in overhead  charges for computer research which  was
   withdrawn.  We  hold that Aspect is  entitled to an award  in the
   amount  of  $109,209.55.   This  award  is  to be  paid,  without
   interest, from the permanent in definite judgment fund, 31 U.S.C.
     1304 (1988).  40 U.S.C.   759(f)(5)(C) (1988).  
 
 
                                                ____________________
                                                EDWIN B. NEILL
                                                Board Judge 
    
   We concur:
 
 
   _______________________
   VINCENT A. LaBELLA
   Acting Chief Board Judge  
 
 
   _______________________
   CATHERINE B. HYATT
   Board Judge