BNUMBER:  B-242650.7
DATE:  February 13, 1997
TITLE:  Gulf Gas Utilities Co.--Claim for Costs

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Gulf Gas Utilities Co.--Claim for Costs

File:     B-242650.7

Date:February 13, 1997

Laurie M. Heasley for the protester.
Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., and Monica Ceruti, Esq., Department of the 
Air Force, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Claim for costs of filing and pursuing a successful protest and 
reconsideration request, including attorneys' fees, is allowed for 
that portion of the claim for which  the protester has provided 
sufficiently detailed documentation to support the claim.

DECISION

Gulf Gas Utilities Co. requests payment of $47,864.95 in expenses 
incurred in pursuing its protest, and in replying to the agency's 
request for reconsideration of our decision on the protest, concerning 
a Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, sole source procurement for public 
utility service.  We sustained the protest in Gulf Gas Utilities Co.; 
Krystal Gas Mktg. Co.; Commercial Energies, Inc., 70 Comp. Gen. 497 
(1991), 91-1 CPD  para.  482, recon. denied, B-242650.4, Oct. 28, 1991, 91-2 
CPD  para.  380.  The amount claimed consists of $12,519.64 in personnel 
costs, $32,610.55 in overhead costs, and $2,740.76 in miscellaneous 
costs (attorneys' fees, telephone calls, postage, and similar 
expenses).  We determine that Gulf Gas is entitled to recover 
$9,514.28.

The agency contends that reimbursement of only the $2,338.60 in 
attorneys' fees actually paid by Gulf Gas should be allowed since a 
claimant cannot--or should not be able to--recover in-house expenses.  
The agency argues that in any event the claim, except for legal 
expenses, was not sufficiently detailed.  It points out that Gulf Gas 
submitted only notes, handwritten entries on a daily reminder calendar 
diary, and various copies of receipts and invoices for expenses 
allegedly incurred as a result of the protest.  These, the agency 
argues, did not substantiate Gulf Gas's claimed expenses.  The agency 
points out that Gulf Gas admits that it did not keep "precise track" 
of the costs incurred by its personnel on the protest.[1]
  
We permit the recovery of in-house labor costs incurred in relation to 
a sustained protest where the in-house labor costs directly relate to 
the protest.  The direct labor rate may be burdened by the indirect 
costs rate to arrive at the reimbursable amount.  See Hydro Research 
Science, Inc.--Claim for Costs, 68 Comp. Gen. 506 (1989), 89-1 CPD  para.  
572.  Reimbursement of costs is allowed where the protester has 
submitted sufficient documentary evidence to support them and where 
these costs, once sufficiently proven, are shown to be reasonable and 
necessary to or otherwise related to the actual protest.  Commerce 
Land Title of San Antonio, Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-249969.2, Oct. 11, 
1994, 94-2 CPD  para.  131.

The internal corporate labor costs (corporate executive staff) claim 
consist of the hours of its president, vice president of Finance, and 
another vice president.
Gulf Gas's summary of the president's and vice president of Finance's 
labor hours devoted to the protest is supported only by the assertion 
that its president spent 74.36 hours and its vice president of Finance 
12 hours working on the protest.  There is no documentation supporting 
the validity of these hours other than a calendar diary, which showed 
only that Gulf Gas's president spent 1 hour on the protest.  Gulf Gas 
reports in its claim submissions that its president reviewed the 
filings provided by our Office and took other actions relevant to the 
protest, and that its vice president of Finance reviewed the 
Department of the Air Force's gas purchases from the proposed awardee 
and developed a spreadsheet for analyzing the cost of that gas.  
Claims for the reimbursement of expenses, at a minimum, must identify 
the amounts claimed for each individual expense, the purpose for which 
that expense was incurred, and how the expense relates to the 
protests.  Diverco, Inc.--Claim for Costs, B-240639.5, May 21, 1992, 
92-1 CPD  para.  460.  The statement of hours claimed and the assertion that 
it is correct with nothing more to establish that the hours of these 
two officers relate to the protest is insufficient evidence that this 
work actually occurred or that it was necessary and relevant to the 
protest.  We allow the reimbursement of $71.26 for the hour that was 
shown on the calendar diary to have been spent on the protest by Gulf 
Gas's president.

Gulf Gas requests reimbursement for 256.4 hours spent by its other 
vice president on the protest and reconsideration request.  The 
calendar diary submitted by Gulf Gas does not show that 2 hours 
claimed for April 19 and 2 hours claimed for June 15, 1991, were 
incurred.  For the remaining 252.4 hours, we believe that the calendar 
diary with its daily notations of the hours spent pursuing protest 
matters, which is consistent with periods prior and up to the date of 
filings of submissions by Gulf Gas to our Office, provides adequate 
support for reimbursement of these costs.  

While the hours claimed represent a significant amount of time, this 
protest was pursued pro se, primarily by the vice president.  In 
addition to the usual protest requirements, this protest also required 
the protester to review a detailed consultant report used to justify 
the agency's decision and to research the contractual and regulatory 
obligations of the proposed awardee and the agency.  Under the 
circumstances, we think the claimed hours are reasonable.  
Accordingly, reimbursement for the vice president's hours (and the 1 
hour for the president) may be made in the amount of $7,175.68 based 
on the salaries of these officers.  Regarding Gulf Gas's claim for 
reimbursement of its attorneys' fees, we agree with the agency that it 
would be proper to reimburse Gulf Gas its attorneys' fees of 
$2,338.60.  For other miscellaneous costs submitted by Gulf Gas, the 
lack of supporting documentation precludes payment of these additional 
amounts of $402.16.

Accordingly, we conclude that Gulf Gas is entitled to recover a total 
of $9,514.28 for the cost of pursuing its protest, including 
attorneys' fees, plus an appropriate amount for overhead.  We make no 
finding regarding the 2.6 factor (260 percent) that Gulf Gas contends 
should be applied to its in-house costs because we understand that the 
reasonableness of the application of this factor was never considered 
by either the agency or the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), 
which audited the claimed costs for the agency.[2]  The agency should 
determine the appropriate overhead factor to be applied to the costs 
that we have allowed, through DCAA assistance or otherwise, and pay 
the protester accordingly.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency also argues that since Gulf Gas did not file a claim for 
its costs with the agency until December 11, more than 60 days after 
the issuance of our decision, its request for costs is untimely and 
should be dismissed.  The 60-day requirement in 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.6(e) 
(1996) became effective on April 1, 1991, and was inapplicable to 
protests filed, as here, before that date.  Hadson Defense Sys.--Claim 
for Protest Costs, B-227285.8, Mar. 13, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  274.  The 
protester was required to--and did--file its claim in a reasonably 
prompt manner.  Custom Prod. Mfg., Inc.--Recon., B-235431.8, July 21, 
1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  40.

2. We have confirmed that DCAA did not resolve the overhead issue.