Continental Airlines, Inc.

B-258271.4 Jul 31, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency's evaluation of proposals for air passenger transportation services was inconsistent with the request for proposals because it did not give sufficient weight to nonstop service is denied where it is clear from the evaluation record that nonstop service was given great weight because it was considered in the evaluation of more than one evaluation factor/subfactor. The source selection plan specifically reserved the agency's right to select a higher-priced offer of nonstop service instead of a lower-priced offer of direct or connecting service if the price of the nonstop offer was not more than [DELETED] percent higher. 2. A cost/technical tradeoff was accomplished and the source selection authority was not required to perform any further cost/technical tradeoff analysis in support of the award decision. View Decision Matter of: Continental Airlines, Inc. File: B-258271.4 Date: July 31, 1995 1. Protest that agency's evaluation of proposals for air passenger transportation services was inconsistent with the request for proposals because it did not give sufficient weight to nonstop service is denied where it is clear from the evaluation record that nonstop service was given great weight because it was considered in the evaluation of more than one evaluation factor/subfactor, received credit both in terms of more technical points and reductions to offered price in the evaluation process, and the source selection plan specifically reserved the agency's right to select a higher-priced offer of nonstop service instead of a lower-priced offer of direct or connecting service if the price of the nonstop offer was not more than [DELETED] percent higher. 2. Where the agency evaluated the technical merit of proposals, calculated the dollar value of significant technical advantages, and adjusted proposed prices to reflect the value of individual proposals' technical advantages, a cost/technical tradeoff was accomplished and the source selection authority was not required to perform any further cost/technical tradeoff analysis in support of the award decision. Attorneys REDACTED DECISION A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. DECISION We deny the protest. Issued on May 3, 1994, the RFP solicited proposals to provide air transportation services for government employees traveling on official business. The RFP contained 5,134 line items representing air transportation to and from specified city pairs, including 1,114 international routes (between American and foreign cities) and 4,020 domestic routes (between American cities). The RFP contemplated award of several fixed-price contracts to fulfill the government's transportation requirements from the date of award until September 30, 1995. Initial offers were received from 20 air carriers by July 7, but due to delays related to an agency-level protest, General Accounting Office protests, [2] and the difficulty of evaluating a large number of offers, the contracts were not awarded until January 1995. [3] The RFP stated that contracts would be awarded on a line item-by-line item basis to the offeror whose offer conformed to the solicitation and represented the greatest value to the government, price and other factors considered. The RFP further stated that award would be made to other than the low-priced offeror where the technical superiority of an offer outweighed the price differential and indicated that price would be considered more important the more equal proposals were in technical merit. The technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were as follows: Factor 1: conformance to solicitation minimum requirements; Factor 2: availability of nonstop service; Factor 3: efficient service to the federal traveler. Under evaluation factor 3, four evaluation subfactors were listed: (1) distribution of flights; (2) elapsed time; (3) total mileage; and (4) number of flights. The protester contends that the source selection plan (SSP) used for evaluation of offers [4] was inconsistent with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria. Specifically, Continental argues that GSA did not accord sufficient weight to evaluation factor 2 (availability of nonstop service) in the technical and price evaluations. In accord with the SSP, proposals were evaluated on a line item-by-line item basis on technical factors and price. [5] Concerning technical merit, the evaluators first examined proposals to determine whether they conformed to the solicitation's minimum requirements (factor 1). Next, the evaluators examined availability of nonstop service (factor 2), awarding [DELETED] for each nonstop flight and [DELETED] for each connecting [6] or direct flight [7] meeting a line item's minimum requirement.