Carlson Wagonlit Travel, B-287016, March 6, 2001

B-287016 Mar 06, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that contracting agency unreasonably evaluated proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Agency is not required to conduct discussions with offerors where solicitation advised that the agency intended to award a contract on the basis of initial proposals. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the lowest-priced transaction fees and met or exceeded the proposal evaluation criteria. Offerors' proposals were required to pass all criteria. "responsive" proposals were to provide the information outlined in the proposal preparation instructions (PPI) and to meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the SOW. /1/ RFP Sec. View Decision Matter of: Carlson Wagonlit Travel File: B-287016 Date: March 6, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Carlson Wagonlit Travel protests the award of a contract to Omega World Travel, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. MDA904-00-R-3108, issued by the National Security Agency (NSA) for travel services. Carlson argues that NSA improperly evaluated its proposal as technically unacceptable and improperly failed to engage in exchanges with the firm prior to award. We deny the protest. NSA issued this RFP on September 19, 2000, to obtain the services of a commercial travel office (CTO) to provide or arrange for a complete range of travel services for agency official travel, including procuring transportation, lodging accommodations, rental cars, and other travel-related services at the most economical cost to the agency. The RFP anticipated the award of a no-cost contract with fixed-price transaction fees based upon commissions for one base year, with up to four 1-year option periods. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the lowest-priced transaction fees and met or exceeded the proposal evaluation criteria. NSA planned to use a pass/fail evaluation system to determine a CTO's capabilities relative to numerous evaluation criteria. To be considered for award, offerors' proposals were required to pass all criteria; a proposal failing one criterion would not be considered for award. RFP Proposal Evaluation Criteria (PEC) Sec. B.1. The RFP advised that an unsupported statement of compliance with the statement of work (SOW) would not constitute a "responsive" proposal; "responsive" proposals were to provide the information outlined in the proposal preparation instructions (PPI) and to meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the SOW. /1/ RFP Sec. M.3. NSA planned to make award based on initial offers without conducting discussions or requesting proposal revisions. RFP Sec. M.2. Since offerors might not have an opportunity to correct deficiencies in their proposals, they were cautioned that it was essential for them to provide all required proposal information in a "thorough and unambiguous manner" and to respond to the criteria and support their capability for providing service to the agency. /2/ PPI at 1. NSA received three proposals by the October 25 closing date, including those from Carlson and Omega. On November 1, the technical evaluators determined that the SOW was unclear with respect to transaction fee billing and recommended that it be clarified. On November 22, NSA issued amendment No. 0003 to revise the SOW with respect to transaction fee billing and issued letters requesting final proposal revisions (FPR) to all three offerors. /3/ The requests advised offerors that their proposals had been evaluated and no discussions were contemplated. Offerors were not asked any specific questions about their proposals, but were encouraged to review them to ensure they satisfied all requirements set forth in the PPI, RFP, and other applicable documents. All three offerors submitted FPRs by the November 29 closing date; none revised their original proposals. The technical evaluation team found Carlson's proposal technically unacceptable in four areas, including the implementation plan criterion /4/ and an aspect of the performance requirements summary criterion. Carlson's proposed transaction fees were the lowest received, at $[DELETED]. The technical evaluation team also found the third offeror's proposal technically unacceptable, and recommended award to Omega as the firm submitting the only technically acceptable proposal at a price of $1,811,458. The source selection authority concurred and award was made to Omega on December 13. Carlson filed this protest after its debriefing. The firm disputes NSA's bases for finding its proposal technically unacceptable and argues that NSA improperly failed to engage in exchanges with the firm prior to award.