KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP---Claim for Costs

B-259479.4 Jul 25, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Attorneys' fees claimed by prevailing protester are reasonable. Where: (1) the hourly rates are within bounds of rates charged by similarly situated attorneys. (2) the hours claimed are properly documented and do not appear to be excessive. (3) legislation which currently places a $150 ceiling on hourly rates for attorneys' fees was not in effect at the time of the protest. We find that Peat Marwick is entitled to recover the disputed amount because the attorneys' fees ceiling provision of FASA was not in effect at the time of Peat Marwick's protest. Therefore is inapplicable. We found that the protester was entitled to recover its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Was reasonable. View Decision Matter of: KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP---Claim for Costs File: B-259479.4 Date: July 25, 1996 Attorneys' fees claimed by prevailing protester are reasonable, and thus allowable, where: (1) the hourly rates are within bounds of rates charged by similarly situated attorneys; (2) the hours claimed are properly documented and do not appear to be excessive; and (3) legislation which currently places a $150 ceiling on hourly rates for attorneys' fees was not in effect at the time of the protest. Attorneys DECISION KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP requests that our Office determine it entitled to recover $22,927.98 in attorneys' fees associated with filing and pursuing its bid protest in KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, B-259479.2, May 9, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 13, recon. denied, B-259479.3, July 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 26. Peat Marwick incurred $69,305 in attorneys' fees as a result of its protest and responding to the subsequent request for reconsideration filed by the contracting agency, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). ARPA has reimbursed Peat Marwick for $46,425 of its incurred attorneys' fees; however, ARPA refuses to pay the remaining portion--$22,927.98--on the ground that this amount represents a portion of the protester's attorneys' fees which exceeds the current $150 hourly limit on attorneys' fees mandated by section 1403(b)(2) of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3554(c)(2)(B) (1994). We find that Peat Marwick is entitled to recover the disputed amount because the attorneys' fees ceiling provision of FASA was not in effect at the time of Peat Marwick's protest, and therefore is inapplicable. In KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP, supra, we sustained the protest based on our finding that ARPA had improperly failed to perform a cost realism analysis of the awardee's proposal and had otherwise improperly permitted the awardee to modify its technical proposal after award without giving other offerors the same opportunity. As a result, we found that the protester was entitled to recover its costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including attorneys' fees, in accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations in effect at that time. See 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.6(d)(1) (1995). Peat Marwick timely submitted its claim for costs to the agency, explaining that its attorneys had expended 16.5 senior partner hours, 163.75 trial partner hours, and 123.25 associate hours in connection with its protest and the subsequent agency request for reconsideration. ARPA reviewed the attorneys' fee claim and determined that the number of attorney hours worked--309.5--was reasonable; however, because of the recent enactment of FASA, ARPA determined that it would not reimburse the protester's attorneys for hourly fees that exceeded $150 per hour. Consequently, ARPA reimbursed Peat Marwick for $46,425 of its expended $69,305 attorneys' fee amount--which represents 309.5 attorney hours at an hourly compensation rate of $150 per hour. [1] When a claim for costs is presented to our Office for resolution, we review the elements of the claim to determine whether the amounts claimed are adequately documented, and are shown to be reasonable; to that end, a protester seeking to recover its costs must submit sufficient evidence to support its monetary claim. Bay Tankers, Inc.--Claim for Bid Protest Costs, B-238162.4, May 31, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 524. A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the pursuit of its protest. Patio Pools of Sierra Vista, Inc.--Claim for Costs, 68 Comp.Gen. 383 (1989), 89-1 CPD para.