___________________________________________ MOTION FOR COSTS GRANTED: February 22, 1994 ___________________________________________ GSBCA 12360-C(12290-P) NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent. James J. Regan, Robert M. Halperin, Kathryn D. Kirmayer, and Peter J. Lipperman of Crowell and Moring, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Ellen D. Washington, Office of the General Counsel, Information Technology Acquisition Center, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, DEVINE, and HENDLEY. PARKER, Board Judge. Protester, New York Telephone Company, filed a timely motion for the recovery of its costs of pursuing the underlying protest pursuant to Rule 35. We grant the motion and award New York Telephone Co. protest costs in the amount of $60,914.31. Background New York Telephone Co. and Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. protested the terms of solicitation number N66032-92-R-0005 and solicitation number N66032-92-R-0004, claiming that these solicitations failed to provide for full and open competition. The solicitations called for the purchase of switching systems for Naval Stations in Mobile, Alabama; Pascagoula, Mississippi; and Staten Island, New York. By order dated March 4, 1993, the protests were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint motion to dismiss filed by the parties. The joint motion stated that the Navy admitted it had violated law and regulation in the procurement and deemed the protester to be the prevailing party for purposes of recovering protest costs. The Navy restructured both solicitations to provide for the evaluation of Centrex service solutions as well as PBX purchase solutions. A new proposal due date was established after the solicitations were restructured. Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988) and Rule 35, New York Telephone Co. has now moved for an award of its protest costs. The protesters, New York Telephone Co. and Bellsouth, filed a joint reply in support of their applications for costs, which included requests for additional costs incurred defending their applications for award of protest costs and for disbursements, the records of which were not available at the time the initial applications were filed. New York Telephone Co.'s total request of $60,914.31 includes $52,317.50 for attorneys' fees and $8,596.81 in disbursements, amounts which we find to be reasonable. Respondent opposes only the protester's application for the award of costs incurred before the time the attorneys began to draft the protest on December 24, 1992. Respondent argues that the attorneys' fees and expenses incurred from December 10 through December 23, 1992, a total cost of $1,242.50, are pre- protest costs and are not reimbursable. In response, New York Telephone Co. explains that this pre-drafting period consisted of background work for the protest, including discussions with the protester regarding the solicitations, review of the solicitation and other relevant documents, and evaluations of appropriate witnesses and potential exhibits. We find that these activities, which were undertaken in connection with preparation of the protest complaint and subsequent litigation, were fully in pursuit of the protest and, therefore, recoverable. Genasys Corp., GSBCA 8841-C(8732-P), 87- 2 BCA 19,726, 1987 BPD 46. Decision Protester's motion is GRANTED. Protester is awarded $60,914.31, to be paid in accordance with statute, 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988). ___________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: ___________________________ ___________________________ DONALD W. DEVINE JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge Board Judge