Omega World Travel, Inc., B-276837.3, June 9, 1998

B-276837.3 Jun 09, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that in evaluating proposals procuring agency unreasonably inflated score of awardee's proposal is denied where protester does not explain why it believes scoring was improper. Rebate was unconditional and its value quantifiable. As well as a mandatory minimum rebate (based on domestic air ticket sales) that offerors were required to provide to the government. Proposals that met the minimum requirements were evaluated against the following technical criteria: Section C. M. Proposals were rated under each subfactor on a numerical scale. Proposals also were evaluated for any rebate offered the government in addition to the mandatory rebate. Technical quality was more important than additional rebates. View Decision Matter of: Omega World Travel, Inc. File: B-276837.3 Date: June 9, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Omega World Travel, Inc. protests the award of a contract to American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 3FBG-W-CM-N-5222, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for travel management center services for the Department of State, United States Information Agency, and United States Agency for International Development. Omega asserts that GSA misevaluated proposals and did not perform an adequate tradeoff between technical quality and the level of rebates. /1/ We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on February 10, 1998, set out minimum service requirements in sections C and H, as well as a mandatory minimum rebate (based on domestic air ticket sales) that offerors were required to provide to the government. Proposals that met the minimum requirements were evaluated against the following technical criteria: Section C, Enhanced Services (with subfactors for project management, quality control plan, personnel, and implementation plan); section H, Enhanced Services (discounted or free airport parking and discounted or free ground transportation); and Past Performance. Solicitation Sec. M. Proposals were rated under each subfactor on a numerical scale. Technical Evaluation Plan. Proposals also were evaluated for any rebate offered the government in addition to the mandatory rebate. Solicitation Sec. M.4. Technical quality was more important than additional rebates, and award was to be based on the best value to the government. Solicitation Sec. M.2. Omega's and American Express's proposals were among those included in the competitive range. After the final technical evaluation, American Express's proposal was ranked [DELETED] in technical merit, with a score of 293.68, while Omega's was ranked [DELETED], with 245.67 points. Source Selection Decision at 2. Omega offered the government the highest additional rebate ($7,712,712.30) and American Express the second highest ($5,910,337.08), but American Express also proposed a [DELETED], which could be applied toward ground transportation. With this proposed [DELETED], more than offsetting the difference in the additional rebate offered by Omega. GSA performed a tradeoff between technical quality and the level of rebates, including consideration of the [DELETED], and made award to American Express after it determined that its offer was most advantageous to the government. Source Selection Decision. This protest followed. Omega argues that GSA improperly evaluated American Express's proposal in several respects. The evaluation of proposals is primarily a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency since it is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our Office will not question the evaluation unless it is unreasonable or inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria. The protester bears the burden of proving that the evaluation is unreasonable. Ogden Support Servs., Inc., B-270354.2, Oct. 29, 1996, 97-1 CPD Para. 135 at 3. We have reviewed all of Omega's arguments and find them to be without merit. We discuss the principal arguments below. ADDITIONAL HARDWARE/SOFTWARE The solicitation provided under the project management subfactor of section C, Enhanced Services that GSA would evaluate offerors' ability to provide additional hardware and software capability to increase automated reservation system services beyond the minimum required. Solicitation Sec. M.3.1(1)(a). American Express offered [DELETED]. Contracting Officer's Statement at 2; Source Selection Decision at 3. GSA found that the offered enhancements would benefit the government by facilitating access to travel arrangements and ensuring quality service, and credited American Express's proposal [DELETED] points for the enhancements.