Omega World Travel, Inc.

Case: B-271262.2 Agency: Protester: Omega World Travel, Inc. Date: 1996-07-25 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-271262.2 Jul 25, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that awardee's offer of airline travel upgrades from coach class to business/premium class was an improper gift to the government because premium class travel is prohibited for government employees is denied. Federal Travel Regulations permit business/premium class travel for long- haul international flights and awardee's proposal indicated offer was only for this type of allowable upgrade. Protest against downgrading of protester's past performance based on evaluators' personal knowledge of complaints about protester's performance under incumbent contract is denied. Where the evaluation judgments were documented in sufficient detail by internal agency memorandum and surveys of agency travelers to show reasonableness of evaluation. View Decision Matter of: Omega World Travel, Inc. File: B-271262.2 Date: July 25, 1996 Protest that awardee's offer of airline travel upgrades from coach class to business/premium class was an improper gift to the government because premium class travel is prohibited for government employees is denied; Federal Travel Regulations permit business/premium class travel for long- haul international flights and awardee's proposal indicated offer was only for this type of allowable upgrade. Protest against downgrading of protester's past performance based on evaluators' personal knowledge of complaints about protester's performance under incumbent contract is denied, where the evaluation judgments were documented in sufficient detail by internal agency memorandum and surveys of agency travelers to show reasonableness of evaluation. Attorneys DECISION Omega World Travel, Inc. protests the award of a contract to WorldTravel Partners (WTP) under request for offers (RFO) No. 52-PAPT-5-00047, issued by the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), Department of Commerce, for travel management services. [1] Omega challenges the evaluation and other aspects of the award process. We deny the protest. The RFO contemplated award of a no-cost contract under which the compensation to the contractor was limited to commissions and fees paid by the commercial travel industry. Technical proposals were called for and were to be evaluated under the following factors: office location/ease of accessibility by PTO employees; experience in providing government travel services; experience in providing international travel services; and customer service/satisfaction/past performance. To the extent proposals were evaluated as technically equal, the determining factor was to be the amount of proposed payments to the government in the form of rebates or concession fees, based on the amount of domestic air ticket sales. Award was to be made to the offeror providing the best value to the government. Ten firms, including Omega and WTP, submitted proposals. After evaluation of best and final offers, WTP's proposal was the highest ranked with 88.31 (out of 100 possible) points (weighted), and a proposed rebate of 2.01 percent; the second-ranked proposal received 85.01 points and proposed a rebate of 3 percent; Omega's fifth-ranked proposal received 59.98 points and offered a rebate of 5 percent. Based on the evaluation results, the selection official determined that WTP's offer represented the best value to the government and made award to the firm. IMPROPER UPGRADES Omega argues that WTP's offer included a "gift" to the government--free upgrades to business-class airline seating on international flights--which violated government ethics standards (5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635.201 et seq.) because business/premium travel is prohibited for government employees. Omega concludes that WTP's offer should have been rejected, or at least downgraded, on this basis. Omega's allegation is based on handwritten notations on the evaluation sheets [2] under the experience in providing international travel services factor. In this regard, one evaluator noted "[b]usiness class on long-haul flights" as a strength for WTP. Conversely, the same evaluator noted "[n]o mention of knowledge as to . . . upgrades on long-haul flights" as a weakness for Omega. The protester surmises from these notations that WTP's proposal score was upgraded for offering prohibited upgrades. This argument is without merit. Contrary to the premise of the protester's argument, business/premium class air travel is not prohibited. Rather, the applicable Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 C.F.R. Sec. 301-3.3, allows premium-class travel under limited circumstances, such as "long-haul" international flights.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...