TITLE: B-299577, Forest City Military Communities, LLC, June 29, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299577
DATE: June 29, 2007
**************************************************************
B-299577, Forest City Military Communities, LLC, June 29, 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: Forest City Military Communities, LLC

   File: B-299577

   Date: June 29, 2007

   Robert H. Koehler, Esq., and Jennifer S. Zucker, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP,
   for the protester.

   E. Sanderson Hoe, Esq., and Jennifer M. Morrison, Esq., McKenna Long &
   Aldridge LLP, for GMH/Centex Military Communities, an intervenor.

   Matthew R. Keiser, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency.

   Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest challenging the agency's use of an arbitrary "plug number" in
   evaluating the awardee's proposed cost is denied where the protester's own
   calculation of the awardee's cost demonstrates that there was no
   likelihood of prejudice.

   2. Protester's supplemental challenges to the agency's evaluation of its
   proposal are dismissed as untimely where the protester could have, but did
   not, raise the arguments in its initial protest based on information made
   available to the protester during its debriefing.

   DECISION

   Forest City Military Communities, LLC protests the award of a contract to
   GMH/Centex Military Communities (GMH) under request for qualifications
   (RFQ) No. W912DR-06-R-0006, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
   housing and community development at the U.S. Military Academy (USMA) in
   West Point, NY. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of
   offerors' proposals was unreasonable.

   We dismiss the protest as untimely in part, and deny the protest in part.

   BACKGROUND

   In 1996, Congress enacted legislation authorizing the Military Housing
   Privatization Initiative with the goal of improving Department of Defense
   military family housing more economically and more quickly than
   traditional military construction approaches. This initiative allows
   private sector financing, ownership, and operation and maintenance of
   military housing. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996,
   Pub. L. No. 104-06, sect. 2801 et seq., 110 Stat. 186 et seq., codified at
   10 U.S.C. sections 2871-2885 (2000). The Army's program under this
   initiative is the Residential Communities Initiative (RCI).

   Under the RCI, the Army selects a contractor to build, renovate, manage,
   and maintain family housing communities at Army installations. The
   contractor will be responsible for owning, developing, redeveloping,
   managing and marketing housing units at a particular installation so that
   military personnel and their families will choose to become residents. The
   RCI uses a 2-phase approach for privatizing housing that the Army has
   employed in 27 projects to date. Agency Report (AR) at 2. In phase 1,
   project planning, the Army conducts a competition to identify a qualified
   contractor to develop a community development and management plan (CDMP)
   for family housing and community facilities at an installation. In phase
   2, project implementation, the Army authorizes the contractor to implement
   the CDMP, subject to several approval authorities, as follows:

     During Phase 2, the developer will implement the CDMP, provided the
     installation, Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA), Office of the
     Secretary of Defense (OSD), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
     the Congress approve the plan, and approval is given to consummate the
     CDMP and begin the transition / transfer of assets and operations.

   RFQ at 7.

   The RFQ here sought proposals for the improvement of Army family housing
   at three installations: (1) Fort Lee, Virginia, (2) the USMA, West Point,
   New York, and (3) Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Offerors were allowed to
   compete for the work at any or all of the installations.

   The RFQ divided the competition into two steps to award the phase 1
   (project planning) contract. In step 1 of the competition, offerors were
   required to demonstrate minimum experience and qualification requirements.
   Offerors meeting these requirements were eligible to compete in step 2 of
   the competition, in which offerors submitted written proposals and
   participated in oral presentations. The offeror selected for award in step
   2 would be awarded a contract for $350,000 to prepare the CDMP in
   collaboration with the Army. After completion of CDMP, the awardee then
   implements its plan, subject to the approvals described above. This
   protest addresses the step 2 evaluation for the USMA portion of this work.

   The evaluation factors for the step 2 portion of this competition were, in
   descending order of importance: project finance, preliminary project
   concept statement, organization capabilities (including past performance),
   small business utilization plan, and risk. RFQ at 36. The agency explains
   that, because the successful offeror would be awarded a lump sum contract
   of $350,000 to perform the project planning portion of the work, offerors'
   cost or price was not separately evaluated, apart from the offeror's
   approach to financing the project. AR at 9 n.1. The RFQ stated that the
   agency would make award to the offeror whose proposal represented the
   "best value to the government." RFQ at 19.

   A source selection evaluation board (SSEB) reviewed offerors' proposals
   and oral presentations. The SSEB provided its report on its evaluations to
   a source selection advisory council (SSAC), which reviewed the SSEB
   reports and prepared its own report to the source selection authority
   (SSA). The agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals addressed three
   areas that are relevant to the protest, and are discussed below.

   First, the agency evaluated offerors' approaches to managing family
   housing. The solicitation anticipates that the Army will convey 628 family
   housing units and lease the land on which they sit to a private
   contractor.[1] In return, the contractor will "provide for the new
   construction/renovation, operation, management and maintenance of the
   existing family housing inventory. This conveyance will be for a
   fifty-year period with a twenty-five year renewal clause." RFQ app. B, at
   B-7. Offerors' proposed CDMPs must "specify the number, type, and size . .
   . of housing units that are to be renovated, rehabilitated, or newly
   constructed." RFQ at 10. Offerors were also required to state when during
   the 50-year period of the contract the new construction and renovation of
   housing units will occur. Id.

   The agency evaluated Forest City's proposed approach under the preliminary
   project concept statement evaluation factor as follows: "The [deleted]
   year initial development period will consist of new construction of
   [deleted] single family homes and renovation [of] [deleted] homes, the
   [deleted] new construction of any of the bidders." AR, exh. 6, Source
   Selection Decision (SSD), at 7. The agency evaluated GMH's proposed
   approach under the concept statement factor as follows: "During the five
   year initial development period GHM plans to deliver [deleted] new units,
   to renovate [deleted] units, to convert [deleted] antiquated historical
   units into 95 more modern, yet historical homes, and perform no work on
   [deleted] units." AR, exh. 6, SSD, at 8. GHM's proposal explains that the
   [deleted] "no work" units would be renovated after the initial development
   period (IDP), during years 11-50 of contract performance, because they had
   been recently renovated or were currently undergoing renovation.[2] AR,
   GMH Proposal at 7-13, 25.

   Second, the agency evaluated offerors' "vertical cost," i.e., the cost of
   new construction, exclusive of the costs of land and infrastructure.
   Vertical cost is a figure expressed as dollars per square foot of new
   construction. The agency contracted with Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), a
   consultant, to prepare a "benchmark" assessment for the USMA housing
   project and to assist in the evaluation of offerors' proposals. AR at 10.
   The JLL benchmark was based on an industry construction cost guide, known
   as "RS Means," recent construction data at the USMA, and information from
   contractors and construction experts in the West Point, New York area. AR,
   exh. 15, JLL Statement, at 1. The agency's benchmark assessment for
   vertical cost was $162.16/sq. ft. AR, exh. 10, Agency Benchmark Analysis,
   at 5.

   The agency calculated Forest City's proposed vertical cost as
   $[deleted]/sq. ft., based on its proposed square footage per unit of new
   construction and its proposed costs. AR, exh. 10, Agency Benchmark
   Analysis, at 5. The SSAC concluded that this cost was a "major weakness"
   under the project finance evaluation factor, because it was low compared
   to the agency benchmark:

     Offeror's Vertical Cost per Square Foot appears low. Value would have
     been added if the offeror more clearly demonstrated through specific
     examples their ability to achieve this price in a manner that would
     maintain the architectural integrity of West Point.

   AR, exh. 9, SSAC evaluation of Forest City, at 8.

   The SSD reiterated the SSAC's concerns, stating that "[u]nfortunately,
   [Forest City] assumes a very low cost of vertical construction of about
   $[deleted] per square foot in comparison to the Army benchmark without
   sufficiently demonstrat[ing] that this cost could actually be achieved."
   Id. at 7. The SSD further concluded that "[Forest City] offered a robust
   scope with the greatest number of new units. However, [Forest City's] low
   [deleted] created doubt about the ability to deliver." SSD at 4.

   In its evaluation of GMH's proposal, the agency concluded that it could
   not determine the proposed square footage per unit of new construction.
   The agency's benchmark analysis states that since the evaluators were
   unable to locate square footage data for GMH's proposal, they instead used
   a "plug number" of 1,850 sq. ft. per unit--the figure used by the agency
   for its benchmark estimate. AR, exh. 10, Agency Benchmark Analysis, at 5.
   Using this plug number in its evaluation of GMH's proposal, the agency
   calculated that GMH's vertical cost was $[deleted]/sq. ft. Id.

   Third, the agency evaluated offerors' guarantees of the scope and price of
   their proposals. The RFQ originally stated that the agency would review
   proposals under the project finance evaluation factor as follows: "Does
   the offeror demonstrate an understanding of the opportunities for and
   limitations on the revenue and expense associated with the project? Does
   the financial plan support the long-term maintenance of the project?" RFQ
   at 43. This provision was subsequently amended, adding an additional
   question to be evaluated by the agency: "To what degree is the offeror
   guaranteeing scope and price?" RFQ amend. 7, at 1.

   The SSAC concluded that for Forest City's scope guarantee, "[v]alue would
   have been added if the offeror had established some typical parameters
   surrounding the guaranteed maximum price contract, e.g. [deleted]." AR,
   exh. 9, SSAC evaluation of Forest City, at 8.

   Based on its evaluations, the agency rated the offerors' proposals as
   follows[3]:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                  |   Forest  City   |       GMH        |
   |----------------------------------+------------------+------------------|
   |Project Finance                   |E-                |E                 |
   |----------------------------------+------------------+------------------|
   |Concept Statement                 |E-                |E                 |
   |----------------------------------+------------------+------------------|
   |Organization                      |E                 |E                 |
   |----------------------------------+------------------+------------------|
   |Small Business                    |E                 |E+                |
   |----------------------------------+------------------+------------------|
   |Overall Rating                    |E-                |E                 |
   |----------------------------------+------------------+------------------|
   |Risk                              |       Low        |       Low        |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR at 9-10.

   The SSA explained that he relied upon the evaluation of the SSAC and
   adopted its findings in making his decision as follows:

     Because of the size and complexity of this requirement, I [used] a
     Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) made up of high level agency
     officials and non-government advisors. The SSAC, examined the report
     prepared by the SSEB as well as each submission, performed a trade-off
     analysis between offerors using its expertise and prepared its findings
     in a report to me dated March 1, 2007. I find the analysis and
     conclusions within that report to be persuasive, to be supported by the
     facts and to be in harmony with the selection factors in the
     solicitation. I therefore adopt them in support of my decision.

   AR, exh. 6, SSD, at 3.

   The SSA concluded that GMH's proposal "presented a cost structure that
   most closely represented the Army's benchmark and offered a Guaranteed
   Maximum Price which provided great confidence in the viability of the
   proposal." AR, exh. 6, SSD at 4. The SSA also found that "GMH's creative
   plan and very reasonable cost assumptions gave the proposal the highest
   overall credibility," even though the SSA acknowledged that it was not the
   proposal with "the most robust scope." Id. at 5. As a result, the SSA
   selected GMA for award.

   After Forest City was given notice of the award, it requested and was
   given a post-award debriefing. During this debriefing, the agency
   "inadvertently" provided Forest City the first two pages of the SSAC
   evaluation of GMH's proposal. Supplemental AR (SAR) at 7; Protester's
   Comments on SAR at 10. These pages identified the breakdown of GMH's
   proposed approach to the units, i.e., that GMH proposed to demolish
   [deleted] units, construct [deleted] new units, renovate [deleted] units,
   convert [deleted] units, and "no work" [deleted] units. The agency also
   provided the protester a redacted copy of the SSD which provided a full
   recitation of the agency's evaluation of Forest City's proposal. This
   protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   Forest City argues that the award determination was flawed because the
   agency: (1) unreasonably evaluated GMH's approach to the housing
   requirements, specifically the awardee's "no work" approach; (2)
   unreasonably evaluated Forest City's proposed vertical cost as too low and
   did not consider whether its scope guarantee addressed that concern; and
   (3) improperly used a "plug number" to calculate GMH's vertical cost when
   the agency was unable to determine GMH's cost from its proposal. As
   discussed in detail below, we conclude that the arguments raised by the
   protester are either untimely or lack merit.[4]

   As a general matter, the evaluation of an offeror's proposal is a matter
   within the agency's discretion, since the agency is responsible for
   defining its needs and the best method for accommodating them. U.S.
   Textiles, Inc., B-289685.3, Dec. 19, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 218 at 2. In
   reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, our
   Office will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment
   was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and
   applicable procurement statutes and regulations. See Shumaker Trucking &
   Excavating Contractors, Inc., B-290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 169
   at 3. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment in its
   determination of the relative merit of competing proposals does not
   establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. C. Lawrence Constr. Co.,
   Inc., B-287066, Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 70 at 4.

   GMH's "No Work" Approach

   The protester raises two challenges to the agency's evaluation under the
   preliminary project concept statement evaluation factor. In its initial
   protest, Forest City argued that the agency unreasonably decided that its
   technical proposal was not as highly rated as GMH's proposal under this
   evaluation factor. In its supplemental protest, however, Forest City
   argues that GMH's proposal should have been rated technically unacceptable
   because it proposed to provide "no work" for [deleted] of the 628 units to
   be conveyed by the government. We find that the protester's initial
   argument regarding this matter was abandoned, and that its supplemental
   argument was untimely, and is otherwise without merit.

   The protester initially argued that the agency did not recognize strengths
   in its proposal as compared to GMH's proposal. Specifically, Forest City
   argued that it proposed to construct and renovate more new homes than GMH,
   and also proposed to allocate the new homes over a broader range of
   non-commissioned officer and officer ranks. Protest at 16-18. Although the
   agency responded to these arguments in detail, AR at 15-19, Forest City
   did not meaningfully address the agency's response in its comments on the
   agency report. Rather, the protester raised a new argument that the agency
   should have rejected GMH's proposed "no work" approach as technically
   unacceptable. See Protester's Comments on the AR at 11-15, 17-19. As a
   result, both the agency and the intervenor argue that Forest City
   abandoned its initial contentions.

   We agree. Where, as here, an agency provides a detailed response to a
   protester's assertions and the protester either does not respond to the
   agency's position or provides a response that merely references or
   restates the original allegation without substantively rebutting the
   agency's position, we deem the initially-raised arguments abandoned.
   Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD
   para. 104 at 8 n.4. We conclude that Forest City has abandoned its
   argument regarding the unequal evaluation of its proposal as compared to
   GMH, therefore we will not consider it further.

   Forest City's supplemental protest contends that the RFQ required offerors
   to propose new construction or renovation for all 628 units during the
   IDP, and that GHM's approach of "no work" for [deleted] units is therefore
   technically unacceptable. This supplemental argument is distinct from the
   protester's initial argument that its proposal should have been rated
   higher than GMH's proposal. The agency and intervenor argue that, given
   the information provided during the debriefing, this later-raised argument
   could have been raised in Forest City's initial protest, and is thus
   untimely.

   Again, we agree. Our Bid Protest Regulations require protests based on
   other than solicitation improprieties to be filed within 10 days of when
   the protester knew or should have known its bases of protest. Bid Protest
   Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2007). 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.[5]
   University Research Co., LLC, B-294358.8 et al., Apr. 6, 2006, 2006 CPD
   para. 66 at 16.

   As discussed above, the agency mistakenly provided Forest City with a copy
   of GMH's evaluation by the SSAC, which disclosed GMH's approach to
   building and renovating the conveyed housing units--including the
   awardee's approach of performing "no work" on a portion of the units.
   Although the protester argues that it did not understand from reading the
   reference to the "no work" units that GMH would not be performing work on
   the units, this contention seems to be rebutted by the protester's initial
   filing. In this regard, Forest City initially argued that the agency's
   evaluations were unreasonable because Forest City proposed to build
   [deleted] new homes as compared to [deleted] by GMH and renovate [deleted]
   homes as compared to [deleted] for GMH. Protest at 17-18. Forest City even
   cited the [deleted] "no work" units in its protest, but did not challenge
   the agency's evaluation of GMH's approach as technically unacceptable.[6]
   Protest at 11. Because the protester's argument is premised on Forest
   City's interpretation of the RFQ as requiring offerors to provide new
   construction or renovation for all 628 units during the IDP, Forest City
   clearly had sufficient information at the time of its initial protest to
   argue that GMH's proposal was technically unacceptable. Put differently,
   to the extent that Forest City argues that offerors were required to
   provide either construction or renovation for all 628 units during the
   IDP, the protester knew that GMH had made no such offer.

   In any event, the record does not support Forest City's argument that
   GMH's proposal was technically unacceptable. Forest City notes that the
   RFQ states the goal of the RCI project as follows: "West Point proposes to
   convey an inventory of [628] family housing units . . . [i]n exchange, the
   partner will provide for new construction/ renovation, operation,
   management and maintenance of the existing family housing inventory . . .
   [over] a fifty-year period." RFQ app. B, at B-7. The protester argues that
   GMH's proposal is unacceptable because it provides "no work" for [deleted]
   units during the IDP. Forest City, however, does not identify any
   solicitation provision which states that all construction and renovation
   must be performed during the IDP. Moreover, Forest City concedes that
   GMH's proposal does in fact provide for the renovation of the [deleted]
   units during years [deleted] through [deleted] of contract performance.[7]
   Protester's Comments on the AR, at 15. On this record, we find that the
   protester's arguments are without merit.[8]

   Forest City's Vertical Cost and the Scope Guarantee

   Next, the protester raises two challenges to the agency's evaluation of
   Forest City's vertical cost under the project finance evaluation factor.
   In its initial protest, the protester argues that the agency improperly
   determined that its vertical cost was too low. In its supplemental
   protest, however, Forest City argues that the agency did not consider
   Forest City's scope guarantee, which, the protester contends, should have
   addressed the agency's concern regarding its vertical cost. Again, we find
   that the protester's first argument regarding this matter was abandoned,
   and that the second argument is, in part, untimely, and in part, without
   merit.

   The protester initially argued that the agency unreasonably determined
   that its vertical cost of $[deleted]/sq. ft. was too low. Protest at 15.
   Specifically, Forest City argued that it had provided adequate information
   in its proposal to support its ability to perform the work at that cost.
   The agency responded to these arguments in detail in the agency report. AR
   at 13-15. In its comments on the agency report, however, the protester did
   not address the agency's response. Rather, the protester argued that the
   agency's concerns regarding its vertical cost should have been addressed
   by its proposed scope guarantee, and that the agency did not properly
   evaluate the scope guarantee. Protester's Comments on the AR at 4-8,
   19-21. As before, because the protester did not respond to the agency's
   discussion of the evaluation of its vertical cost in the agency report, we
   agree with the agency's and intervenor's assertions that this aspect of
   Forest City's protest was abandoned. Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc.,
   supra.

   The protester's supplemental argument--that its scope guarantee should
   have addressed or obviated the agency's concern regarding its vertical
   cost--is distinct from its initial protest argument, and thus was required
   to independently satisfy the requirements for timeliness. In answer to the
   agency's and intervenor's assertions that this supplemental argument is
   untimely, the protester contends that it could not have known prior to
   receiving the agency report that the agency did not consider its scope
   guarantee to address the concern regarding its vertical cost. The
   protester knew based on its debriefing, however, that the agency expressed
   a concern regarding Forest City's lack of "typical parameters surrounding
   the guaranteed maximum price contract, e.g., [deleted]." AR, exh. 19, SSAC
   Evaluation of Forest City, at 8. The debriefing also disclosed the
   agency's conclusion that [u]nfortunately, [Forest City] assumes a very low
   cost of vertical construction of about $[deleted] per square foot in
   comparison to the Army benchmark without sufficiently demonstrat[ing] that
   this cost could actually be achieved." AR, exh. 4, SSD, at 7. Thus, to the
   extent that the protester believes that its scope guarantee should have
   addressed the agency's concern regarding its vertical cost, Forest City
   was on notice that the agency did not share this view. On this basis, we
   conclude that the protester's supplemental protest concerning the scope
   guarantee and vertical cost is untimely. Planning & Dev. Collaborative
   Int'l, supra.

   Separate and apart from the relationship between the vertical cost and
   scope guarantee, the protester also argues that certain SSEB and SSAC
   evaluation documents suggest that the agency failed to evaluate Forest
   City's scope guarantee in accordance with the solicitation
   requirements.[9] Specifically, the protester argues that some members of
   the SSEB used evaluation forms that did not reflect Amendment 7 to the
   RFQ, which required offerors to address the following criterion: "To what
   degree is the offeror guaranteeing scope and price." RFQ amend. 7, at 1.

   The agency concedes that certain of the forms used by the SSEB did not
   address the offerors' scope guarantees, and that the SSEB and SSAC
   consensus evaluations did not contain separate pages to address scope
   guarantees. SAR at 6. As discussed above, however, the record shows that
   the SSAC expressly considered Forest City's scope guarantee, stating that
   "[v]alue would have been added if the offeror had established some typical
   parameters surrounding the guaranteed maximum price contract, e.g.
   [deleted]." AR, exh. 9, SSAC evaluation of Forest City, at 8. Thus, the
   protester's argument that the agency overlooked its scope guarantee is not
   supported by the record.[10]

   Plug Number for GMH's Vertical Cost

   Finally, the protester challenges the agency's evaluation of GMH's
   vertical cost. As discussed above, the agency was unable to calculate
   GMH's vertical cost, and instead used a "plug number" for square footage
   found in the agency's benchmark estimate. Forest City argues that the use
   of the plug number was unreasonable, as this figure had no relation to
   GMH's proposal. Even if we were to accept Forest City's contention that
   the use of a plug number under these circumstances was unreasonable, the
   protester's own argument demonstrates that it could not have been
   prejudiced by such an error. In this regard, our Office will not sustain a
   protest absent a showing of competitive prejudice, that is, unless the
   protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have a
   substantial chance of receiving award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8,
   1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102
   F.3d 1577, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   Forest City states that, after reviewing the agency report, it was "able
   to readily find, identify and calculate the correct square footage and the
   corresponding correct vertical cost." Protester's Comments on the AR at
   11. The protester argues that its calculations show that GMH's proposed
   square footage was [deleted] sq. ft., instead of the 1,850 sq. ft. the
   agency used as a plug number. On this basis, the protester contends that
   GMH's vertical cost is $[deleted]/sq. ft., instead of $[deleted]/sq. ft.,
   as calculated by the agency. Id. If the agency's plug number is used,
   GMH's vertical cost of $[deleted] is [deleted] percent higher than the
   agency benchmark; if the protester's calculations are used, GMH's vertical
   cost of $[deleted] is [deleted] percent lower than the agency benchmark.
   Forest City's vertical cost of $[deleted], in contrast, is [deleted]
   percent lower than the agency benchmark.

   The agency and intervenor contend that the agency's use of the plug number
   did not result in any possible prejudice to Forest City, i.e., there was
   no possibility that Forest City would have received the award, but for the
   agency's actions here. See McDonald-Bradley, supra. We agree. As discussed
   above, the agency concluded that GMH's cost structure "most closely
   represented the Army's benchmark," and that Forest City's "low
   construction costs assumptions created doubt about the ability to
   deliver." AR, exh. 6, SSD at 4. In light of the significant differences
   that would remain even if we accept the protester's calculation of GMH's
   vertical cost, we conclude that even if the agency's approach was
   erroneous--a conclusion we need not reach--Forest City was not prejudiced
   by the agency's evaluation.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The RFQ originally identified 964 units; this number was subsequently
   reduced to 628 units.

   [2] GMH's proposal states that it will perform "no work" for the [deleted]
   units during its IDP of [deleted] months. Forest City's proposal
   identifies a [deleted]-month IDP.

   [3] The agency used an evaluation scheme of Exceptional (E), Acceptable
   (A), Unacceptable (U), or Neutral (N)--and used plus and minus modifiers
   to capture distinctions between each rating category. Proposals were also
   rated as low, moderate, or high risk.

   [4] Forest City raised a number of additional arguments in its initial
   protest that were not addressed in its comments on the agency report. We
   consider all of the issues that were raised in the initial protest,
   addressed by the agency in its report on the protest, and not addressed in
   the protester's comments, to have been abandoned. Citrus College; KEI
   Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 104 at 8 n.4.
   In addition, the protester raised certain collateral issues in its
   comments on the agency report that were, at best, tangentially related to
   the main arguments. We have reviewed all of the protester's arguments, and
   conclude that none provides a basis for sustaining the protest.

   [5] Moreover, even if the protester's supplemental argument was arguably
   related to its initial protest ground, we would still consider it untimely
   as the facts regarding GMH's "no work" approach were clearly known to
   Forest City at the time the protest was filed. 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. Planning & Dev. Collaborative Int'l,
   B-299041, Jan. 24, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 28 at 11.

   [6] In answer to assertions by the agency and the intervenor that this
   basis of protest was untimely raised in Forest City's supplemental filing,
   Forest City argues that it would have been improper for it to rely on the
   inadvertently disclosed document or to ask for more information regarding
   the "no work" evaluation reference during its debriefing. Protester's
   Comments on Supp. AR at 10. This argument is unpersuasive: Forest City
   clearly relied on this document to file its initial protest, and provides
   no support for the contention that a protester is excused from our
   timeliness rules because the information on which the protest was based
   was inadvertently disclosed. See KPMG Peat Marwick, B-251902.3, Nov. 8,
   1993, 93-2 CPD para. 272 at 3-4, aff'd, Agency for Int'l Dev.; Development
   Alternatives, Inc.--Recon., B-251902.4, B-251902.5, Mar. 17, 1994, 94-1
   CPD para. 201 (protester filed protest within 10 days of receiving
   materials from other offeror's proposals that were provided in error by
   the agency).

   [7] As discussed above, GMH's proposal states that renovation will occur
   on those units from years [deleted]. AR, GMH Proposal at 7-13, 25.

   [8] The protester also argues that the SSAC failed to brief the SSA
   regarding GMH's "no work" approach, and, as a result, the SSA did not
   consider whether this approach was technically acceptable. Again, the
   record does not support the protester's argument. As discussed above, the
   SSAC report to the SSA discusses the [deleted] "no work" units proposed by
   GHM. AR, exh. 5, SSAC Report, at 3. The SSD also discusses GMH's proposed
   approach to the work, including the "no work" units. AR, exh. 6, SSD, at
   8.

   [9] Although this issue is clearly related to the scope guarantee argument
   that we dismiss above, we believe that the protester's argument regarding
   a general failure to consider the scope guarantee as required by the
   solicitation is distinct from Forest City's initial protest argument.
   Because the protester's argument that the agency did not consider the
   scope guarantee is based on documents not made available during the
   debriefing, i.e. the individual evaluator rating sheets, we consider this
   aspect of Forest City's supplemental protest timely.

   [10] The protester also argues that the award decision was flawed because
   the SSD did not specifically mention Forest City's scope guarantee. The
   SSA explained, as discussed above, that he reviewed the SSAC report and
   adopted its conclusions in making his selection determination. AR, exh. 6,
   SSD, at 3. The SSD addressed areas where the SSA identified discriminators
   between offerors' proposals that formed the basis for the SSA's selection
   decision. We do not agree with the protester that the SSD was flawed for
   failing to recite and discuss every finding of the SSAC, including its
   criticism of Forest City's scope guarantee.