BNUMBER:  B-270686.3
DATE:  June 5, 1996
TITLE:  Ralph G. Moore & Associates--Reconsideration

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

Matter of:Ralph G. Moore & Associates--Reconsideration

File:     B-270686.3

Date:June 5, 1996

Janice Davis, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

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.

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.[2]  Based on these 
statements in its protest, RGMA asserts that its allegation that the 
agency failed to perform an adequate cost realism analysis "pertained 
to both RGMA's and ISS' submissions."  On its face, this 
interpretation of its protest simply is not reasonable.  The cited 
portions are broad in nature and the protest otherwise lacks any 
reference whatsoever to the awardee's proposal.  RGMA's general 
challenge--i.e., "DOE-CH Failed to Conduct a Reasonable Cost Realism 
Analysis"--simply cannot be read to encompass a challenge to the 
awardee's proposal; in fact, this portion of its protest consists 
principally of a recitation of the general standards for conducting a 
cost realism analysis, and, even with respect to RGMA's own proposal, 
contains only one reference to a specific area in which the agency 
allegedly acted improperly.[3]

Because RGMA's initial protest ground--aside from the specifically 
identified issue as to its own proposal--was so broad, the agency was 
unable to respond save for its assertion that it conducted an 
appropriate cost realism analysis.  As a result, any agency response 
to these later-raised contentions would constitute a de facto 
supplemental agency report.  Where, as here, a later-raised protest 
allegation requires a contracting agency to respond to it as though it 
were a supplemental protest, this later-raised allegation must 
independently satisfy our timeliness requirements.  Id.; see also Dial 
Page, Inc., B-256210, May 16, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  311.

The record shows that RGMA possessed the documentation necessary to 
raise the allegations at issue no later than December 28, when it 
received the cost proposal analysis.  Since it did not raise these 
allegations within 14 days of that date, we properly considered them 
to be untimely.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2); Global Plus,
B-257431.9, Dec. 14, 1994, 95-1 CPD  para.  77.  Moreover, to the extent 
RGMA now argues that some of its allegations were premised upon 
information provided in the agency's January 19 report, RGMA's 
comments were not filed within 14 days of its receipt of that report.  
An extension of time for filing comments on an agency report does not 
waive the timeliness requirements for filing bid protests.  Keci 
Corp.--Recon., B-255193.2, May 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  323.

Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the 
requesting party must show that our prior decision contains either 
errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered 
that warrants reversal or modification of our decision.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.14(a); R.E. Scherrer, Inc.--Recon., B-231101.3, Sept. 21, 1988, 
88-2 CPD  para.  274.  RGMA's reconsideration request does not meet this 
standard.

The request for reconsideration is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
 
1. RGMA reiterated its general allegation in a supplemental protest 
filed December 18.

2. The quoted sentence, from S-Cubed, A Div. of Maxwell Laboratories, 
Inc., B-242871, June 17, 1991, 91-1 CPD  para.  571, is as follows:  "[t]he 
contracting agency must protect itself against a buy-in by analyzing 
each offeror's proposed costs in terms of their cost realism and 
evaluating cost on the basis of what appears to be realistic." 

3. RGMA stated:  "For example, on information and belief, the DOE-CH 
improperly evaluated RGMA's proposed estimated costs by failing to 
accord due credit to the cost savings DOE-CH would experience due to 
the fact that RGMA, as the incumbent, would not incur learning curve 
costs or costs related to transitioning into the contract."