Omega World Travel, Inc., B-283218, October 22, 1999

B-283218 Oct 22, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The overriding concern in the evaluation process is that the final score assigned accurately reflect the actual merits of the proposals. Thus discussions were not otherwise necessary. Omega alleges that there were improprieties in the agency's evaluation of the proposals. The discount fee was the most important factor in that the RFP provided for it to be weighted as approximately equal to the two other factors. Offerors were required to insert their discount fees in the solicitation schedule provided in section B of the RFP. For both official and leisure travel: The discount on airfares provided by the contractor is to be a percentage of the commissions paid to the contractor by suppliers of air transportation. View Decision Omega World Travel, Inc., B-283218, October 22, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Omega World Travel, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract for commercial travel services to Sato Travel under request for proposals (RFP) No. F62321-99-R0035. Omega alleges that there were improprieties in the agency's evaluation of the proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on April 9, 1999, contemplated the award of a 1-year contract with four 1-year options for travel services to be provided at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. The RFP provided, in section M, that the award would be made on the basis of the best value to the government, and that proposals would be evaluated under the following three factors: understanding of the requirement, past performance, and discount fee. The discount fee was the most important factor in that the RFP provided for it to be weighted as approximately equal to the two other factors, combined. Offerors were required to insert their discount fees in the solicitation schedule provided in section B of the RFP. The schedule called for the entry of air travel discount amounts for official travel, RFP Sec. B, at 4-5, and leisure travel, RFP Sec. B, at 6-7, and instructed offerors to submit discount fee amounts for the base year and each option year for each of these categories. /1/ The schedule provided the following instruction, in relevant part, for both official and leisure travel: The discount on airfares provided by the contractor is to be a percentage of the commissions paid to the contractor by suppliers of air transportation, based on total air official travel purchases. RFP Sec. B, at 4, 6. The RFP stated in section M that the government intended to award the contract without discussions, citing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.306, and advised offerors to submit initial proposals that were fully and clearly acceptable without additional information or explanation. RFP Sec. M-2, at 52. Sato submitted a number of questions to the agency by letter dated April 21. In one of those questions, Sato pointed out that item 2.2.8 of the RFP (at page 115) defines the "discount fee" for leisure travel as an "amount paid . . . [to the Air Force] stated as a percentage of total gross sales," and that both this definition and the definition provided under "Specific Tasks," RFP Sec. C-5 (at page 126), refer to gross sales as the basis for the discount percentage and thus differ from the schedule in section B (as quoted above), which called for the leisure travel discount to be submitted as a "percentage of the commissions paid to the contractor." Agency Report, Tab 20, Sato's Questions for Clarification, at 1. The contracting officer responded, in a written clarification that was distributed to Omega and Sato, that "[t]he discount for leisure tickets is the percentage of the total gross sales. The up front reduction of the base fare should not be considered the discount." Agency Report, Tab 18, Request for Clarification Responses, at 1. Thus, as clarified, the RFP treated official and leisure travel differently, with offerors asked to express their official travel discounts as a percentage of the commission paid by the carrier and their leisure travel discounts as a percentage of gross sales revenue. Sato and Omega submitted offers by the May 3 closing date for receipt of proposals. A five-person source selection evaluation team (SSET), with the contracting officer acting as its chief and evaluation facilitator, evaluated each of the proposals. The evaluators scored the proposals under a color-coded rating system, assigning a rating of blue/exceptional, green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable under each evaluation factor. The SSET chief prepared a proposal analysis report, based on the individual evaluators' ratings and evaluation narratives.