TITLE: B-299041, Planning And Development Collaborative International, January 24, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299041
DATE: January 24, 2007
********************************************************************************
B-299041, Planning And Development Collaborative International, January 24, 2007

   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
   The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
   Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

   Decision

   Matter of: Planning And Development Collaborative International

   File: B-299041

   Date: January 24, 2007

   Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for the protester.

   Richard P. Rector, Esq., Robert M. Reiser, Esq., DLA Piper US LLP, for The
   Services Group, Inc., an intervenor.

   John B. Alumbaugh, Esq., U.S. Agency for International Development, for
   the agency.

   Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency was not required to hold discussions regarding area of protester's
   proposal that was weak, but acceptable, and that did not prevent the
   protester from having a reasonable opportunity for award.

   DECISION

   Planning and Development Collaborative International (PADCO) protests the
   award of a contract to The Services Group, Inc. under request for
   proposals (RFP) No. 111-05-033, issued by the U.S. Agency for
   International Development (USAID) for technical assistance and support for
   the Government of Armenia. PADCO principally argues that the agency failed
   to hold meaningful discussions regarding a significant weakness in its
   proposal.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued on January 23, 2006, contemplated the award of a
   cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 3-year base period and two 1-year
   options, to implement USAID's Social Protection Systems Strengthening
   (SPSS) Program for improving the social protection systems in Armenia,
   while, at the same time, increasing opportunities for self-reliance and
   reducing the Armenian citizens' dependence on public support to meet basic
   needs. To achieve these ends, USAID sought a contractor to provide
   technical assistance and support for capacity-building training,
   commodities, and public education to select public and private sector
   entities targeting four key areas: (1) social insurance; (2) employment
   services; (3) occupational safety and labor code; and (4) social
   assistance programs for vulnerable populations. RFP at C-1. For each of
   the four key areas, the RFP set forth expected results for the 3-year base
   period as well as the full 5-year contract term (base plus two option
   periods) and sought from each offeror their expected results for the
   program as well.

   Proposals were to be evaluated on a "best value" basis considering the
   following three technical factors listed in descending order of
   importance: (1) technical approach, management approach, and personnel,
   (2) past performance, and (3) small disadvantaged business (SDB)
   participation. The technical approach, management approach, and personnel
   factor, which was "significantly more important than all other factors
   combined," consisted of three equally weighted sub-factors: (i) clarity
   and demonstrated effectiveness of offeror's proposed strategies and
   activities, (ii) relevance of the proposed activity work, and (iii)
   proposed management and staffing plan. RFP at M-2. The past performance
   factor was composed of five sub-factors of equal weight and the SDB
   participation factor was composed of four equally weighted sub-factors. In
   its evaluation of proposals, the RFP indicated that the agency was to use
   the following adjectival rating scheme: outstanding, better, acceptable,
   marginal, and unacceptable. As it relates to the protest, ratings of
   better and acceptable were defined as follows:

     "Better" . . . Fully meets all solicitation requirements and
     significantly exceeds many of the solicitation requirements. Response
     exceeds an "Acceptable rating." The areas in which the Applicant exceeds
     the requirements are anticipated to result in a high level of efficiency
     or productivity or quality.

     "Acceptable" . . . Meets all solicitation requirements. Complete,
     comprehensive, and exemplifies an understanding of the scope and depth
     of the task requirements as well as the Applicant's understanding of the
     Government's requirements.

   RFP at M-2.

   With respect to cost, which was identified as being of "significantly less
   importance" than the technical evaluation factors, offerors were
   instructed to include a detailed budget for the 5-year contract term. RFP
   at M-4. Offerors' cost proposals were to be evaluated on (i) realism and
   risk mitigation, (ii) consistency with the technical proposal, (iii)
   overall cost control, and (iv) amount of proposed fee. While cost was the
   least important evaluation factor, the RFP stated that where the agency
   considered proposals to be essentially equal, "cost may be the determining
   factor." RFP at M-4.

   By the RFP's closing date of April 10, 2006, the agency had received
   proposals from four offerors, including PADCO and The Services Group. For
   the purpose of evaluating proposals, USAID composed a technical evaluation
   committee, which was responsible for evaluating offerors' technical
   proposals while the contracting officer concurrently evaluated offerors'
   cost proposals. Based on its evaluation of initial proposals, the agency
   rated the proposals of PADCO and The Services Group as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Evaluation Criteria                             |  PADCO   |The Services|
   |                                                |          |   Group    |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |Technical Approach, Management Approach, and    |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |Personnel                                       |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |i. Clarity and demonstrated effectiveness of the|  Better  |   Better   |
   |offeror's proposed strategies and activities and|          |            |
   |their rationale                                 |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |ii. The relevance of the proposed Activity Work |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |iii. Proposed Management and Staffing Plan      |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |Past Performance                                |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |1. Quality of product or service                |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |2. Cost control                                 |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |3. Timeliness of performance                    |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |4. Customer satisfaction                        |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |5. Effectiveness of key personnel               |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |Small Disadvantaged Business Participation      |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |a. The extent to which SDB concerns are         |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |specifically identified                         |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |b. The complexity and variety of the work SDB   |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |concerns are to perform                         |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |c. Past performance of offerors in complying    |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |with subcontracting plan goals for SDB concerns |          |            |
   |and monetary targets for SDB participation      |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |d. The extent of participation of SDB concerns  |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |in terms of the value of the total acquisition  |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |OVERALL TECHNICAL RATING                        |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |TOTAL PROPOSED COST                             |18,477,785| 17,023,789 |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report, Tab 133, Negotiation Memorandum, at 8.

   In its evaluation of PADCO's proposal, the TEC noted several strengths and
   weaknesses under the technical approach, management approach, and
   personnel subfactors. Specifically, the TEC noted three strengths and five
   weakness under the subfactor "clarity and demonstrated effectiveness of
   the offeror's proposed strategies and activities and their rationale," one
   strength and two weaknesses under the "activity work plan" subfactor, and
   two strengths and two weaknesses under the "management and staffing plan"
   subfactor. As it relates to the protest, the two strengths under the
   "management and staffing" subfactor were described as follows:

     Strength 1: PADCO has proposed [an] overall, personnel mix that is well
     matched to the technical proposal and to [] fulfilling the objectives of
     the SPSS project. The technical management approach meets the proposal
     and requirements of the RFP extremely well. PADCO has proposed and
     respectively budgeted for an excellent mix of expatriate long- and
     short-term advisors and local Armenian "champions" for all four
     components, through the entire life-cycle of the project. . . .
     Qualifications of cross-cutting intervention managers match the areas
     identified in the RFP.

     Strength 2: Proposed Chief of Party Daniel Wartonic has an outstanding
     record of hands-on professional and managerial experiences in a mix of
     major social protection technical assistance activities under the SPSS.
     . . . Mr. Wartonic is very well suited to span key SPSS project's areas
     -- pension and overall social insurance reform and social assistance. .
     . .

   AR, Tab 54, TEC Selection Memorandum, at 18-19.

   In its evaluation of The Services Group's proposal, the TEC identified
   various strengths and weaknesses, one of which was described as a
   "significant weakness." Specifically, under the management and staffing
   plan subfactor, while the TEC noted two strengths, it indicated that
   "[t]he quantity and quality of [The Services Group's] proposed team of
   local long-term technical experts does not meet the RFP's requirement on
   ensuring that the project's Armenian staff play major roles in project
   decision making and implementation," which, in the view of the TEC,
   constituted a "significant weakness." AR, Tab 54, TEC Selection
   Memorandum, at 26.

   The TEC presented its initial evaluation findings to the contracting
   officer and recommended that three of the four proposals, including those
   of PADCO and The Services Group, be included in the competitive range for
   the purpose of discussions. The contracting officer, considering the TEC's
   recommendation and the results of the cost evaluation, agreed with the TEC
   and decided to hold further negotiations with three firms. In deciding on
   the competitive range, the contracting officer considered in detail the
   level of effort proposed by each offeror, as reflected in their cost
   proposals. The competitive range decision memorandum in fact included, for
   each offeror, a detailed break-down of the offeror's proposed level of
   effort by labor category, for each year of the contract.[1] AR, Tab 55,
   Competitive Range Determination, at 28, 37. Based on this review, the
   contracting officer noted that PADCO's level of effort was sufficient for
   implementation of the program and echoed the comments of the TEC in
   concluding that The Services Group's proposed level of effort contained a
   "significant weakness" since it relied heavily on expatriate as opposed to
   local advisors. AR, Tab 55, Competitive Range Determination, at 9.

   On July 18, 2006, the agency sent discussion letters to the competitive
   range offerors identifying the various weaknesses in their proposals, with
   revised proposals due August 3. Thereafter, as explained in the discussion
   letters, the agency scheduled oral presentations with the competitive
   range offerors, which were to be used to "augment" their written proposals
   in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.102. Oral
   presentations consisted of a 90-minute presentation by the offeror
   followed by a 2-hour period for questions and answers. On August 18, the
   agency received final proposal revisions from the three offerors.

   In evaluating the revised technical proposals, the TEC considered the oral
   presentations as well as the offerors' revised proposals. The record
   reflects that the agency viewed The Services Group's performance during
   oral presentations more favorably than PADCO's. Specifically, with respect
   to The Services Group, the agency commented as follows:

     During the oral presentation the Offeror's team exhibited real teamwork
     and genuine engagement by the home office representatives. Each team
     member demonstrated clear understanding of the conditions in Armenia's
     social sector as well as the details and vision of the proposal. The
     Offeror's oral presentation and responses to the TEC's questions
     demonstrated the quality and cohesiveness of the Offeror's proposed team
     and provided assurance that they could be effective in accomplishing the
     project's objectives . . . the Offeror's oral presentation appreciably
     strengthened and improved its technical proposal and convincingly
     demonstrated the validity and effectiveness of its technical approach.

   AR, Tab 133, Negotiation Memorandum, at 56.

   However, as to PADCO, the agency stated that its

     oral presentation demonstrated that, despite the fact that the offeror
     pulled together a cadre of international experts of very good quality,
     they did not act as a team working towards a common goal. The offeror
     failed to demonstrate also sound understanding of the objectives of the
     oral presentation and was not able to manifestly present the proposal.

   AR, Tab 133, Negotiation Memorandum, at 55.

   In addition, the record reflects that PADCO's overall technical score was
   reduced from "better" to "acceptable," while The Services Group's overall
   score increased from "acceptable" to "better." In evaluating PADCO's final
   proposal submission, the TEC indicated that PADCO had addressed each of
   the weaknesses identified in its proposal in discussions; however, the TEC
   noted a new weakness with respect to the management and staffing
   subfactor, which had not been previously raised with PADCO. Specifically,
   the TEC described this weakness as follows:

     Weakness 1: The proposed [level of effort] contrasts sharply in our
     minds with the stated plan of action, which is significantly based on
     cultivating Armenian champions. This mismatch in the intent versus the
     amount of allocated human resources left us concerned that the intended
     transfer of skills and expertise would be at risk. For example, Local
     [long term technical advisors] is relatively high and steady in years
     1-3, but then declines by 35% from year 3 to year 4 and 60% from year 3
     to 5. The reduced levels of Expatriate [long-term technical advisors]
     and local [long-term technical advisors] appear at odds with the desire
     to cultivate Armenian champions and offer no security against
     unanticipated disruptions in the political climate, key government
     counterparts, or other factors which could affect progress in any or all
     of the project components.

   RFP, Tab 126, Final TEC Report, at 12.

   It appears from the record that this newly identified weakness resulted
   from the TEC's obtaining information regarding the specific distribution
   of PADCO's level of effort by labor category for each year of the project.
   This information appears to have been drawn from PADCO's cost proposal,
   which the contracting office provided to the TEC as part of its final
   technical evaluation. See AR, Tab 109, E-mail Regarding Level of Effort
   Analysis; AR, Tab 111, E-mail Regarding Draft Final Scores. While the
   weakness identified was new, it was not the result of any change to
   PADCO's proposal. In this regard, one of the members of the TEC questioned
   whether the weakness identified should be considered a weakness as opposed
   to "an overall comment," since, as the evaluator noted "[t]o be fair and
   consistent, we did not raise this during the initial evaluation . . . and
   PADCO did not change their original approach to the staffing and
   management plan." AR, Tab 116, E-mail Regarding TEC Memorandum.

   Ultimately, PADCO's initial rating of "better" under the management and
   staffing plan subfactor was changed by the TEC to reflect a final rating
   of "acceptable."

   The final evaluation results were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Evaluation Criteria                             |  PADCO   |The Services|
   |                                                |          |   Group    |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |Technical Approach, Management Approach and     |Acceptable|   Better   |
   |Personnel                                       |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |i. Clarity and demonstrated effectiveness of the|  Better  |   Better   |
   |offeror's proposed strategies and activities and|          |            |
   |their rationale                                 |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |ii. The relevance of the proposed Activity Work |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |iii. Proposed Management and Staffing Plan      |Acceptable|   Better   |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |Past Performance                                |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |1. Quality of product or service                |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |2. Cost control                                 |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |3. Timeliness of performance                    |Acceptable| Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |4. Customer satisfaction                        |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |5. Effectiveness of key personnel               |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |Small Disadvantaged Business Participation      |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |a. The extent to which SDB concerns are         |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |specifically identified                         |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |b. The complexity and variety of the work SDB   |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |concerns are to perform                         |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |c. Past performance of offerors in complying    |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |with subcontracting plan goals for SDB concerns |          |            |
   |and monetary targets for SDB participation      |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |d. The extent of participation of SDB concerns  |  Better  | Acceptable |
   |in terms of the value of the total acquisition  |          |            |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |OVERALL TECHNICAL RATING                        |Acceptable|   Better   |
   |------------------------------------------------+----------+------------|
   |TOTAL REVISED COST                              |17,221,335| 16,873,454 |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 133, Negotiation Memorandum, at 56.

   As part of the final cost evaluation and best value determination, the
   contracting officer closely examined the distribution of offerors' level
   of effort between expatriate and local advisors, as well as their level of
   effort distribution between the base and option year periods. In this
   regard, while the TEC maintained that the overall level of effort proposed
   by The Services Group in its revised proposal presented a weakness, albeit
   not a significant weakness, the contracting officer concluded that the
   distribution of local labor cost and level of effort proposed by The
   Services Group "greatly contributes to capacity building and
   sustainability." AR, Tab 133, Negotiation Memorandum, at 138. With regard
   to the distribution of effort between the base and option periods, the
   contracting officer noted that Armenia would be facing parliamentary
   elections in 2007 and presidential elections in 2008 with resulting
   changes of the government and key counterparts for the project, and stated
   that The Services Group's "approach with proportional distribution of
   [level of effort] and especially [expatriate level of effort] between the
   base and option periods of the program will greatly support the
   sustainability of reforms to be initiated during the base period of the
   contract. . . ." AR, Tab 133, Negotiation Memorandum, at 138. This was
   contrary to the level of effort proposed by PADCO, which was "heavily
   loaded on the base period of the program." Id. Ultimately, the contracting
   officer concluded that the proposal submitted by The Services Group, which
   was higher rated and reflected a lower evaluated total cost as compared to
   PADCO's, represented the best value to the government.

   After learning of the agency's decision, PADCO requested a debriefing,
   which the agency provided on October 17, 2006. During the debriefing, the
   agency identified the strengths of PADCO's proposal as well as its one
   weakness regarding the distribution of its level of effort between the
   base and option periods. Regarding this weakness, the agency explained
   that while it increased the risk of project implementation, it was not
   considered to be a significant weakness or deficiency. AR, Tab 132, PADCO
   Debriefing Notes, at 3. This protest followed.

   LACK OF MEANINGFUL DISCUSSIONS

   The protester primarily argues that it did not receive meaningful
   discussions concerning the weakness identified by the TEC regarding the
   distribution of its level of effort between the base and option periods
   since this issue was not raised during discussions. The protester
   maintains that the "weakness" should have been addressed during
   discussions since it proved to be a primary discriminator in the agency's
   best value decision and because the "weakness" was significant since it
   directly resulted in a downgrading of its technical proposal from "better"
   to "acceptable."

   Where contracting agencies conduct discussions with offerors whose
   proposals are within the competitive range, the discussions must be
   meaningful; that is, an agency must, at a minimum, point out deficiencies
   and significant weaknesses that must be addressed in order for the offeror
   to have a reasonable chance for award. FAR sect. 15.306(d)(3); PAI Corp.,
   B-298349, Aug. 18, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 123 at 8. An agency, however, is
   not required to afford offerors all-encompassing discussions, or to
   discuss every aspect of a proposal that receives less than the maximum
   score. Id.

   Here, USAID initially conducted discussions with PADCO (as well as other
   offerors whose proposals were in the competitive range), which were
   followed by submission of revised proposals. The record reflects that
   while PADCO adequately addressed each of the weaknesses raised by the TEC
   in discussions, the TEC subsequently attributed a new weakness to PADCO's
   revised proposal, specifically, the distribution of its level of effort
   for the SPSS project between the base and option periods. As explained
   above, this weakness does not appear to have arisen because of changes
   made through PADCO's proposal revisions; that is, the weakness appears to
   relate to PADCO's proposal as it was prior to the discussions.

   If an agency holds discussions and, in the context of evaluating offerors'
   revised proposals, identifies concerns that should have been raised had
   they been identified before discussions were held, the agency is required
   to reopen discussions in order to raise the concerns with the offerors.
   The key fact is that the concerns (while identified after discussions have
   been closed) relate to the proposals as they were prior to discussions.[2]
   Al Long Ford, B-297807, Apr. 12, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 68 at 8.

   The question thus posed by PADCO is whether the agency acted improperly by
   not reopening discussions to raise the additional, later-identified
   "weakness" in its proposal.

   As a preliminary matter, however, the issue of PADCO's lack of an evenly
   distributed level of effort between the base and option periods, as
   reflected in the best value decision, was not identified by the
   contracting officer as a weakness at all. Rather, in the context of a very
   close competition, the agency's best value decision reflects a comparative
   judgment between the proposals of PADCO and The Services Group, which had
   a lower total evaluated cost, and a preference for The Services Group's
   proposed technical approach, which, as compared to PADCO's, provided a
   more even distribution of level of effort across the base and option
   periods. Thus, rather than being viewed as a weakness of PADCO's proposal,
   the level of effort issue in the context of the best value decision, was
   principally viewed as a distinguishing strength of The Services Group's
   proposal since it enhanced the likely success of the SPSS program. In this
   regard, the contracting officer's best value decision states as follows:

     All three offerors proposed adequate level of [effort] for project
     implementation. However, TSG's [level of effort] distribution among
     expat and [local] labor is the most reasonable and contributes to
     capacity building and sustainability.

     It is worth to mention that Armenia will be facing parliamentary
     elections in 2007 and presidential elections in 2008 with following
     changes of the government and key counterparts for the project. [The
     Services Group's] approach with proportional distribution of [level of
     effort] and especially expat [level of effort] between the base and
     option periods of the program will greatly support the sustainability of
     reforms to be initiated during the base period of the contract and will
     ensure continue[d] dialogue with the post elections Government of
     Armenia. In [contrast] the proposals from [offeror A] and PADCO are
     heavily loaded on the base period of the program with [level of effort]
     and other resources and have not taken the above mentioned factor into
     account.

   AR, Tab 133, Negotiation Memorandum, at 138.

   We recognize, as PADCO points out, that the TEC did in fact describe the
   level of effort feature of its proposal as a "weakness." Contrary to
   PADCO's argument, however, discussions are not inadequate simply because a
   weakness, which was not addressed during discussions, subsequently becomes
   a determinative factor in choosing between two closely ranked proposals,
   as was the case here. See, e.g., Gracon Corp., B-293009 et al., Jan. 14,
   2004, 2004 CPD para. 58 at 3; Hines Chicago Inv., LLC, B-292984, Dec. 17,
   2003, 2004 CPD para. 5 at 3-4.

   Further, regarding PADCO's contention that the weakness must have been
   significant because its final ratings were decreased, the agency reports,
   and the record confirms, that this weakness was not viewed by the agency
   as significant. At PADCO's debriefing, USAID expressly stated that it did
   not consider the above weakness to be significant. Consistent with this
   statement, the evaluation documents show that none of the evaluation
   comments characterize PADCO's distribution of its level of effort as a
   "significant weakness," a term the agency had used to describe other
   weaknesses it identified in its evaluation. See, e.g., AR, Tab 55,
   Competitive Range Determination, at 9 (discussing a "significant weakness"
   in the initial proposal submitted by The Services Group). While the
   distribution of PADCO's level of effort presented a "risk," as indicated
   by the TEC, there is nothing to suggest that it created an unacceptable
   level of risk or "appreciably" increased the risk of PADCO's proposal. See
   FAR sect. 15.001 (defining a "weakness" as "a flaw . . . that increases
   the risk of unsuccessful contract performance" and a "significant
   weakness" as "a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful
   contract performance"). Ultimately, under both the management and staffing
   plan subfactor and the overall technical approach factor, PADCO's proposal
   received a rating of "acceptable," which, as noted above, was defined by
   the RFP as a proposal which meets all solicitation requirements, is
   "complete" and "comprehensive," and exemplifies an understanding of the
   tasks required. RFP at M-2.

   PADCO also argues, for the first time in its comments, that "USAID
   actually may have misled PADCO" regarding the adequacy of its staffing
   plan since the TEC had identified as a strength in PADCO's proposal, that
   its staffing plan was "excellent" "through the entire life-cycle of the
   project." AR, Protester's Comments at 9. PADCO, however, alleges only that
   it "may" have been misled without pointing to any evidence that the
   allegedly misleading strength was ever identified to PADCO. Based on our
   review, there is nothing in the record reflecting that this information in
   fact was provided to PADCO during its discussions with the agency. As a
   consequence, there is no basis for our Office to conclude that the
   agency's discussions were misleading.

   MISCELLANEOUS UNTIMELY ISSUES

   PADCO also contends that it was unfairly and unequally treated as compared
   with The Services Group. These arguments are untimely.[3]

   As a general matter, under our Bid Protest Regulations, protests based on
   other than solicitation improprieties must be filed within 10 calendar
   days of when the protester knew or should have known their bases. 4 C.F.R.
   sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2006). Moreover, where a protester initially files a
   timely protest, and later supplements it with independent grounds of
   protest, the later-raised allegations must independently satisfy the
   timeliness requirements, since our Regulations do not contemplate the
   unwarranted piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues. FR
   Countermeasures, Inc., B-295375, Feb. 10, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 52 at 9.

   In this regard, where a protester raises a broad ground of protest in its
   initial submission but fails to provide details within its knowledge until
   later, so that a further response from the agency would be needed to
   adequately review the matter, these later, more specific arguments and
   issues cannot be considered unless they independently satisfy the
   timeliness requirements under our Bid Protest Regulations. Biospherics,
   Inc., B-285065, July 13, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 118 at 12-13. In this
   regard, we have found supplemental protest grounds untimely which present
   "examples" of flaws in the agency's evaluation generally alleged in the
   initial protest since such staggered presentation of issues, each of which
   involves different factual circumstances and requires a separate
   explanation from the agency, constitutes precisely the type of piecemeal
   presentation of issues that our timeliness rules do not permit. QualMed,
   Inc., B-257184.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 94 at 12-13.

   Here, in its initial protest, PADCO raised a general allegation that USAID
   unfairly and unequally evaluated and treated PADCO and The Services Group.
   In its comments on the agency report, which were filed more than 10
   calendar days after receipt of the agency report due to the protester's
   request for an extension of time, PADCO identified specific examples of
   how the agency's treatment of PADCO was unfair and unequal as compared to
   The Services Group. These challenges are untimely because they were raised
   more than 10 calendar days after PADCO knew the basis for these issues.[4]

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] In preparing its report the agency indicated that it had discovered
   errors with its calculations of the levels of effort in the offerors'
   initial proposals. AR, Tab 135, Errata Sheet. The agency maintains that
   its calculations of the offerors' final proposed levels of effort are
   correct.

   [2] This contrasts with the situation where an offeror introduces an
   element in a post-discussion revision to its proposal that the agency
   views as a deficiency or a weakness. In that situation, the agency is not
   required to reopen discussions to address the new concern. See Ogden
   Support Servs., Inc., B-270354.2, Oct. 29, 1996, 97-1 CPD para. 135 at 7.

   [3] Because we conclude that PADCO's allegations regarding the propriety
   of discussions and the evaluation of proposals are without merit or
   otherwise not for consideration, PADCO's objection to the best value
   decision--based solely on these alleged improprieties--likewise provides
   no basis to sustain the protest.

   [4] An extension of time period for filing comments does not waive the
   timeliness requirements pertaining to the filing of new grounds of
   protest. SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD
   para. 59 at 3-4 n.3. Accordingly, the arguments raised for the first time
   by PADCO in its December 1 comments are untimely because they were not
   raised within 10 days of PADCO's receipt of the agency report, which put
   PADCO on notice of these arguments.