SatoTravel, B-287655, July 5, 2001

B-287655 Jul 05, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Department of the Air Force contract award for travel services, contending that the Air Force improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal. GAO held that the Air Force (1) reasonably evaluated the awardee's proposal and (2) the proposal conformed to the terms of the solicitation. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision SatoTravel, B-287655, July 5, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SatoTravel protests the award of a contract to N&N Travel and Tours, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F41689-00-R-0065, issued by the Department of the Air Force for official commercial travel office services at various Air Force facilities. SatoTravel essentially contends that N&N's proposal did not conform to the terms of the RFP and could not properly form the basis for award. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract (no guaranteed minimum) for the base period and eight 6-month option periods to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, the mission capability technical evaluation factor (staffing and personnel qualifications, performance plan, and small and small disadvantaged business participation), past performance, and price considered. Proposals determined technically acceptable would be ranked according to price, and then the offerors' past performance would be evaluated and assigned an adjectival rating (as relevant here, exceptional/high confidence; very good/significant confidence; and satisfactory/confidence). With respect to price, offerors were to insert on the RFP schedule a "service fee" for air transactions in the base and each option period. (The RFP included estimated workloads for use in preparing proposals, but advised offerors that actual requirements were subject to substantial variation in quantity over time.) The RFP stated that a past performance/price tradeoff would be made, with past performance being evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price. Six firms, including SatoTravel (the incumbent contractor) and N&N, submitted proposals. After discussions, the proposals of SatoTravel and N&N were determined technically acceptable. With respect to past performance, SatoTravel received an exceptional/high confidence rating, while N&N received a satisfactory/confidence rating. Regarding price, SatoTravel inserted on the RFP schedule for each period of performance a service fee per air transaction higher than zero, i.e., a positive monetary amount. Under SatoTravel's pricing scheme, the agency calculated that it would pay approximately $1.4 million in service fees to SatoTravel over the term of the contract. In contrast, N&N inserted on the RFP schedule a service fee of "$zero" per air transaction for the base period; for each option period, N&N inserted an amount less than zero, i.e., a negative monetary amount, which was labeled by N&N as representing a "discount fee" per airline ticket. In other words, for the base and option periods, N&N proposed a service fee of zero and, as an added incentive in the option periods, N&N proposed a monetary rebate to the agency for each air transaction. Under N&N's pricing scheme, the agency calculated that over the term of the contract, N&N would rebate to the agency approximately $190,350. Finally, the agency determined that both SatoTravel and N&N submitted prices that were fair and reasonable based on current market conditions, competition, and market research and information obtained during discussions, and that both firms were financially responsible. The source selection authority (SSA) recognized that SatoTravel's proposed service fees were significantly less than what was being charged under the predecessor contract; that SatoTravel received an exceptional/high confidence past performance rating; and, that SatoTravel's performance as the incumbent was excellent and highly relevant. The SSA also recognized that N&N received a satisfactory/confidence rating, noting that N&N has provided commercial travel office services at a number of Air Force bases and that the firm's proposed subcontractors also had relevant commercial travel office experience. The SSA pointed out that most of N&N's references reported highly satisfactory or satisfactory performance by the firm. The SSA reported that unfavorable past performance reports for N&N were investigated, but these reports "did not result in discernible doubt" regarding N&N's ability and commitment to provide high quality travel services. References for N&N's proposed subcontractors reported exceptional, very good, and satisfactory performance. The SSA noted that since N&N proposed a service fee of zero for the base period and discount fees/rebates in the option periods, N&N's proposal would result in no costs to the government over the term of the contract.