____________________ DENIED: June 19, 1995 ____________________ GSBCA 11302-C(11206-P, 11212-P, 11223-P) RMS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Applicant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Respondent. Pamela J. Mazza, Andrew P. Hallowell, and Brian N. Garcia of Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, Washington, DC, counsel for Applicant. Susan R. Trippi and Rosa M. Koppel, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges HYATT, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On June 20, 1991, RMS Technologies, Inc. filed with the Board this motion for the award of its costs of filing and pursuing the underlying protests and for bid and proposal preparation costs. RMS and the respondent, the Department of Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, have executed a settlement which resolves the request for bid and proposal preparation costs. What remains before the Board is the request for costs of filing and pursuing the protests. As the awardee, RMS opposed all grounds of the initial protests, but joined the protesters in opposing the agency's determination to reject all proposals and proceed to satisfy its requirements using in-house personnel. Although RMS prevailed as an intervenor on the amended grounds of protest, the record does not differentiate hours expended by counsel and in-house personnel between the successful and other grounds of protest. Therefore, the Board denies the request for recovery. Findings of Fact Underlying this cost case are three protests filed by unsuccessful offerors who each contended that the agency erred in selecting RMS as the awardee and in not making the award to it. During the course of the protest, the agency terminated the contract with RMS, and asserted a position that it would reject all proposals, cancel the solicitation, and satisfy its requirements through in-house efforts. RMS was an intervenor of right in the protests. It opposed the initial bases of protest--that is, it maintained that the agency properly selected it as the awardee. It supported the amended issues of protest which alleged the agency had violated statute and regulation in rejecting all proposals and in determining to discontinue the procurement and proceed using in- house personnel. The Board granted the protests on these amended bases. CBIS Federal Inc., GSBCA 11206-P, et al., 91-2 BCA 23,995, 1991 BPD 117. RMS seeks to recover a total of $35,637.70 as its costs of filing and pursuing the protests. This amount consists of costs charged by retained counsel ($25,225.70 in hourly fees multiplied by hourly rates) and in-house costs ($10,412.00 in burdened employee hourly rates). The record specifies the total number of hours expended by four members of the law firm, and the hourly rates of each individual. The record also describes the services provided. The record fails to detail the hours expended by each individual on any day, does not associate any particular effort with a specific individual, and fails to attribute any particular hours to filing and pursuing the amended bases of protest which RMS supported. The in-house costs of burdened hourly rates are for efforts of three employees. The record reveals the position of only one of the employees; the description is simply as a "duly authorized officer" of RMS. The record only reveals a total number of hours expended by each individual; it does not contain a breakdown of the hours spent on given days or a description of the activity involved. Thus, the record does not differentiate between hours expended on the issues RMS supported in its intervention and other matters. Further, regarding in-house costs, the record contains no information on how the claimed "direct labor" rates or the overhead and G&A rates were calculated. The sole explanation is a certification, signed by the duly authorized officer, "that the information contained in the foregoing Motion for Costs, and the supporting documentation, is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief." Discussion RMS seeks to recover costs for filing and pursuing the protests. The agency opposes the motion. RMS prevailed on the amended issues of protest, which it supported during the course of the proceeding. RMS seeks to recover for efforts expended on those matters as well as in opposing the protests. The record does not establish the reasonableness of the requested costs. No particular costs can be attributed to these narrow bases of the amended protests. The record lacks specificity as to the efforts engaged in by the members of the retained law firm and the in-house employees. Further, the record does not establish how RMS calculated the direct labor rates or the overhead and G&A rates for which it seeks reimbursement. The Board concludes that the record does not support the reimbursement of any of the requested costs. 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). Decision The Board DENIES the motion for recovery. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge I concur: ____________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge HYATT, Board Judge, concurring. I concur in the result reached by the majority because no amount is awarded for salary or salary-related costs of the protester's in-house personnel. In my view, such costs should not be awarded regardless of the level of supporting documentation provided. See Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C- REM(9835-P), 95-1 BCA 27,575, 1995 BPD 65 (DeGraff, J., dissenting). ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge