The Travel Company

B-271167.2 Oct 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contingency support was a listed subfactor under the customer service criteria. Offerors were required to demonstrate the capability to confirm itineraries for the shipment of human remains/escorts both at government expense and C.O.D. by the families at the destination airport. Offerors were warned that cursory responses or responses which merely reiterated or reformulated the performance work statement (PWS) would not be considered responsive to the requirements of the RFP. An offeror's technical proposal had to demonstrate that the offeror was capable. Was able to plan. Proposals were to be evaluated as technically acceptable or unacceptable. TTC's proposal was among 10 received by the agency. View Decision Matter of: The Travel Company File: B-271167.2 Date: October 18, 1996 Agency properly rejected as technically unacceptable a proposal in which the offeror failed to provide required detailed procedures and methodology for movement of mass casualties and human remains and declined to describe proposed equipment, after having been advised explicitly of these proposal deficiencies during discussions. Attorneys DECISION The Travel Company (TTC) protests the rejection of its proposal as technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. F26600-95- R-0159, issued by the Department of the Air Force for commercial travel services for two Air Force bases located in Nevada and Idaho. The protester maintains that the agency improperly rejected its proposal for failure to provide detailed procedures and methodology for movement of mass casualties and human remains and failure to describe all equipment proposed for use in performing the contract. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-priced contract to the responsible technically acceptable offeror whose proposal offered to provide the government with the highest overall discount and concession fee rates. The solicitation advised offerors that the technical evaluation criteria included customer service and equipment and software capabilities. Contingency support was a listed subfactor under the customer service criteria, and the RFP required offerors to provide an emergency plan which included specific details as to how the contractor would handle the movement of mass casualties with 60 minutes notification for the duration of the emergency situation. As part of the emergency plan, offerors were required to demonstrate the capability to confirm itineraries for the shipment of human remains/escorts both at government expense and C.O.D. by the families at the destination airport. With respect to equipment and software capabilities, the RFP called for offerors to describe all equipment they proposed to use in performance of the requirements of the contract including automated reservation, ticketing, and accounting components, with an explanation of major components. Offerors were warned that cursory responses or responses which merely reiterated or reformulated the performance work statement (PWS) would not be considered responsive to the requirements of the RFP. An offeror's technical proposal had to demonstrate that the offeror was capable; possessed sufficient technical expertise and experience; possessed sufficient resources; and was able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to achieve the RFP requirements. The solicitation further advised that a proposal had to be rated acceptable for all factors, subfactors, and items to receive an acceptable rating for the overall technical area. Proposals were to be evaluated as technically acceptable or unacceptable. TTC's proposal was among 10 received by the agency. The initial evaluation resulted in all proposals being evaluated as either not ratable or unacceptable--susceptible of being made acceptable. TTC's proposal was ranked eighth based solely on the proposed discount and concession fee rates. Discussions were held with all offerors in the form of clarification requests (CRs) and deficiency reports (DRs). Four CRs and 12 DRs were issued to the protester. The protester provided adequate responses to all of the CRs and for 10 of the DRs. However, the agency concluded that the protester's response to DRs relating to two of the factors were inadequate. One DRs, involving customer service, advised TTC that its emergency support plan did not address the procedures and methodology for the movement of mass casualties and human remains. TTC's response referred back to its original proposal without providing any further details. The other DRs, involving equipment and software capabilities, advised TTC that its proposal did not address the equipment allocation, type, and amount to be located at the two Air Force bases and did not indicate the equipment to be located at the Mercury Satellite Facility.