GRANTED IN PART: January 8, 1993 GSBCA 10386-C(10100-P)-REIN ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS FEDERAL CORP., Protester, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent. Lynda Troutman O'Sullivan and Gene Perry Bond, Perkins Coie, Washington, DC, counsel for Protester. Prentis Cook, Jr., Office of the General Counsel, Department of Energy, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges PARKER, HENDLEY, and BORWICK. PARKER, Board Judge. Following a successful protest of the decision by the Department of Energy to award a contract to Planning Research Corporation (PRC), Electronic Data Systems Federal Corporation (EDS), protester, also succeeded in overturning respondent's second attempt to award the contract. Electronic Data Systems Federal Corp., GSBCA 10100-P, 90-1 BCA 22,337, 1989 BPD 304 (1989). Although PRC appealed our decision to overturn respondent's first award of the contract, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Board's decision. Planning Research Corp. v. United States, 971 F.2d 736 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Protester first applied for litigation costs for the second phase of this protest in 1989, but we dismissed the motion without prejudice after PRC appealed our first decision concerning this contract. Electronic Data Systems Federal Corp., GSBCA 10386-C(10100-P) (Oct. 25, 1990). Soon after the Court issued its decision, protester timely moved to reinstate the motion. Citing our recent decision in Sterling Federal Systems, Inc. v. National Aeronautic and Space Administration, GSBCA 10000-C(9835-P), 1992 BPD 141 (May 22, 1992), appeal docketed, 92-1552 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 1992), respondent now asks the Board to deny recovery of employee salaries. Out of protester's total claimed $121,502.20 in litigation costs, $111,793.48 went to outside counsel and $9,779.22 to EDS, including $9,166.28 for salaries and $612.94 for LEXIS research. Protester argues that the salaries and research costs are recoverable, despite Sterling, because they are attributable to the work of two in-house counsel, one law clerk, one full-time paralegal, and a contract administrator who performed legal support duties during the litigation. After reviewing protester's supporting documentation, we find that protester may recover the attorney's fees and disbursements incurred by outside counsel, totalling $111,793.48. Protester also may recover the attorney's fees incurred by its in-house counsel, plus the hourly wage rate for the paralegal and law clerk who normally aid the in-house counsel. International Business Machines Corp. v. Department of Treasury, GSBCA 11605- C(11359-P), 1992 BPD 220, at 4 (Aug. 21, 1992) (in-house counsel fees recoverable); Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) (term "attorney's fees" encompasses the salaries of a public interest law firm's paralegals and law clerks). We also allow $612.94 for LEXIS research costs. However, we deny the request for the salary of the EDS contract administrator, Joseph Lentine, in the amount of $928.76. Protester describes Mr. Lentine as a paralegal, for cost recovery purposes, even though his title alone reveals that he was not a full-time member of protester's legal staff. Mr. Lentine did not research case law, develop legal strategy, or write briefs, as our review of the billing sheets reveals that the EDS attorneys, the paralegal, and the law clerk did. Motion of Electronic Data Systems Federal Corporation for Award of Protest Costs, Exhibit C (Nov. 9, 1992). Mr. Lentine's role here was akin to that of the contracting staff in Sterling, who likewise did not work in the contractor's office of general counsel. Sterling, 1992 BPD 141, at 11. Decision The Board GRANTS IN PART protester's motion to recover its attorney's fees incurred in litigating this protest, in the amount of $120,573.44, to be paid in accordance with statute, 31 U.S.C. 1304 (1988), 40 U.S.C. 759(f)(5)(C) (1988). ___________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge 3 We concur: ___________________________ ___________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge Board Judge