WorldTravelService, B-284155.3, March 26, 2001

B-284155.3 Mar 26, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that awardee's price is unreasonably low and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the requirement is denied where solicitation did not provide for realism analysis. 2. Protest that contracting agency conducted inadequate and unequal discussions as between the protester and awardee is denied where the record shows that the agency properly tailored discussions to each offeror. Fact that past performance evaluation does not specifically refer to relative risk assessment contemplated by evaluation criteria is unobjectionable. Since relative risk assessment was implicit in agency's scoring of each proposal. Proposed fees for these services were to be based on the reasonable cost of making the appropriate reservations and of providing related services. View Decision Matter of: WorldTravelService File: B-284155.3 Date: March 26, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION WorldTravelService (WTS) protests the award of a contract to Omega World Travel, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-99-P(BH)-0032, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, for travel services. WTS challenges the evaluation, the adequacy of discussions and the price/technical tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND NIH issued this solicitation in 1999 for travel services, including transportation, lodging, and car rental, for four types of travel: staff, patient, VIP, and meeting travel. Proposed fees for these services were to be based on the reasonable cost of making the appropriate reservations and of providing related services. In addition to these fees, the successful contractor was permitted to retain all revenue (e.g., commissions) accrued from travel bookings and other services. This was a performance-based procurement, under which offerors were left to propose the best method of meeting the agency's requirements. Performance objectives were included to ensure that the agency's standards were met. In addition to the required services, the RFP requested certain "other desired services," and also permitted offerors to propose additional "value-added" services. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, requirements contract for a base year, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of mandatory qualification criteria (conformance to specified minimum requirements and experience) and four evaluation factors: understanding the requirement (100 points); quality control, performance standards and management (30 points); past performance (10 points); and other desired services (10 points). Prices for core services were evaluated by multiplying proposed transaction fees by the estimated volume of each transaction for the total performance period. Prices for value-added services were to be evaluated for price reasonableness. The technical factors combined were to be significantly more important than price, and award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the combination of features offering the best overall value to the government. RFP Sec. M.1. Six offerors, including WTS and Omega, submitted proposals, all of which were found technically acceptable and placed in the competitive range. After discussions, NIH determined that WTS's higher-rated proposal represented the best value despite its significantly higher price, and made award to that firm. Omega then filed a protest in our Office challenging the evaluation of its technical proposal and the price/technical tradeoff. Recognizing that its best value analysis was largely undocumented, NIH took corrective action and we dismissed the protest as academic (B-284155, Dec. 8, 1999). NIH reopened negotiations with all offerors in the competitive range and obtained final proposal revisions (FPR) from each. Based on its evaluation of the FPRs, NIH again determined that WTS's higher-rated, significantly higher-priced proposal represented the best value. Omega filed a second protest with our Office, again challenging the evaluation of its technical proposal and the price/technical tradeoff. In response to this protest, NIH again determined to take corrective action on the basis that the statement of work did not adequately reflect the needs of the agency and the evaluation factors did not reflect the importance of certain aspects of the work. We therefore dismissed this second protest as academic (B-284155.2, June 29, 2000). NIH amended the RFP and requested new FPRs. Of the three offerors responding, only WTS's and Omega's proposals were deemed acceptable. After reviewing the revised proposals, the technical evaluation panel (TEP) identified various concerns and questions for WTS and Omega. NIH conducted discussions with and solicited FPRs from both.