___________________________________
 
                   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