Ralph G. Moore & Associates--Reconsideration

B-270686.3 Jun 05, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Request for reconsideration is denied where the protester has not shown that prior decision contains either errors of fact or law. Counsel for the protester was given the source evaluation panel's final report. Was provided on January 19. RGMA requested and was granted a 3-day extension of time in which to file its comments. We declined to consider these issues because they were untimely raised. Protests based on other than solicitation improprieties must be filed within 14 days of when the protester knew or should have known their bases. 4 C.F.R. RGMA had been provided at least some of the information that should have put it on notice of these specific and detailed allegations on December 28. View Decision Matter of: Ralph G. Moore & Associates--Reconsideration File: B-270686.3 Date: June 5, 1996 Request for reconsideration is denied where the protester has not shown that prior decision contains either errors of fact or law, or presented information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of decision. Attorneys DECISION Ralph G. Moore & Associates (RGMA) requests reconsideration of our decision in Ralph G. Moore & Assocs., B-270686; B-270686.2, Feb. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 118, denying its protest of the award of a contract to Information Support SVRS (ISS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP02-95CH10619, issued by the Department of Energy for federal information processing support services for its Chicago Operations Office. We deny the request for reconsideration. In its protest, filed December 6, 1995, RGMA alleged that the agency failed to conduct a reasonable cost realism analysis. The only specific allegation raised in this regard concerned the evaluation of its own cost proposal. [1] On December 28, pursuant to a protective order, counsel for the protester was given the source evaluation panel's final report, which included an extensive analysis of both offerors' cost proposals. The agency report, along with the remaining relevant documents, was provided on January 19, 1996. RGMA requested and was granted a 3-day extension of time in which to file its comments, and did so on February 5. In those comments, for the first time, RGMA presented specific and detailed allegations concerning the cost realism analysis of ISS' proposal. As we stated in our decision, we declined to consider these issues because they were untimely raised. Under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests based on other than solicitation improprieties must be filed within 14 days of when the protester knew or should have known their bases. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.2(a)(2) (1996). RGMA had been provided at least some of the information that should have put it on notice of these specific and detailed allegations on December 28, but did not raise them until its comments were filed 39 days later. Litton Sys., Inc., Data Sys. Div., B-262099, Oct. 11, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 215. In its request for reconsideration, RGMA argues that its initial protest allegation encompassed both proposals, and asserts that it did not need to file a supplemental protest to add the cost realism analysis of ISS' proposal as a new protest ground. The timeliness of specific bases of protest raised after the filing of a timely initial protest depends upon the relationship the later-raised bases bear to the initial protest. See Kappa Sys., Inc., 56 Comp.Gen. 675 (1977), 77-1 CPD para. 412. Where the later bases present new and independent grounds of protest, they must independently satisfy our timeliness requirements. Curtis Center Ltd. Partnership--Recon., B-257863.3, Mar. 20, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 147; GE Gov't Servs., B-235101, Aug. 11, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 128. Where the later contentions merely provide additional support for an earlier, timely raised objection, we consider these additional arguments. Prospect Assocs., Inc., B-260696, July 7, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 53. In cases where we have found that later-raised contentions provide additional support to an initial protest ground and are, thus, timely, the initial protest ground has been narrowly drawn. See, e.g., Litton Sys., Inc., Data Sys. Div., supra (and cases cited therein). Because the specificity of these initial protest allegations allowed the contracting agency to provide the protester and our Office with a detailed and informed response, the agency was not required to expend significant additional time and effort to address the later-raised contentions. Id. In arguing that its initial protest letter raised a challenge to the cost realism analysis of both offers, the protester points to the title of the relevant portion of its protest--"DOE-CH Failed to Conduct a Reasonable Cost Realism Analysis"--and to its quotation of a passage from a prior decision by our Office setting out the standards for a contracting agency's cost realism analysis.