Omega World Travel, Inc.; SatoTravel, Inc., B-288861.5; B-288861.6; B-288861.7, August 21, 2002

Omega World Travel, Inc.; SatoTravel, Inc., B-288861.5; B-288861.6; B-288861.7, August 21, 2002 TITLE: Omega World Travel, Inc.; SatoTravel, Inc., B-288861.5; B-288861.6; B-288861.7, August 21, 2002 BNUMBER: B-288861.5; B-288861.6; B-288861.7 DATE: August 21, 2002 ********************************************************************** Omega World Travel, Inc.; SatoTravel, Inc., B-288861.5; B-288861.6; B-288861.7, August 21, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Omega World Travel, Inc.; SatoTravel, Inc. File: B-288861.5; B-288861.6; B-288861.7 Date: August 21, 2002 Barry Roberts, Esq., and Brian J. Hundertmark, Esq., Roberts & Hundertmark, for Omega World Travel, Inc., and James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Van Scoyoc Kelly, for SatoTravel, Inc., the protesters. J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for Carlson Wagonlit Government Travel, the intervenor. Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Maj. Robert W. Clark, and Capt. Ronald Sullivan, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency consideration of discount offered by firm for award of contracts for all regions listed under solicitation, and award to that firm of contracts for all regions, is unobjectionable and consistent with solicitation evaluation and award provisions, which contemplated multiple awards but permitted awards for any combination of regions. 2. Agency properly declined to consider contingent discount offered by protester under solicitation that called for fixed prices. 3. Agency properly declined to consider *alternative* monthly management fee pricing structure that did not provide any prices on the basis of transaction fees, as required by the solicitation. 4. Agency reasonably did not downgrade proposal under past performance evaluation factor because of 5-year old contract fee dispute under predecessor contract that did not affect contract performance and that had been resolved by a settlement favorable to the offeror. DECISION Omega World Travel, Inc. and SatoTravel, Inc. protest the award of contracts for commercial travel services for five travel regions to Carlson Wagonlit Government Travel by the Military Traffic Management Command, Department of the Army (MTMC), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAMT01-01-R-0175. Omega objects that the agency improperly considered a discount offered by Carlson for the award of contracts for all five regions and improperly awarded contracts for all five regions to Carlson, and improperly declined to evaluate a contingent pricing discount proposed by Omega. SatoTravel primarily objects that the agency refused to consider its alternate proposal for a flat monthly management fee, and misevaluated Carlson's past performance. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued on May 3, 2001, sought proposals to operate and manage commercial travel offices for five defense travel regions throughout the United States, providing travel services that include issuing airline tickets, booking car and hotel reservations for official travel, and issuing tickets for emergency leave travel. The RFP permitted offerors to propose on any or all of the regions listed in the schedule, and stated that the agency *contemplated* the award of multiple fixed-price contracts for a base year with eight 6-month option periods. RFP amend. 10, at 421. The RFP did not specify that any minimum number of firms would be selected for award, stating instead that *[a] maximum of five (5) contracts shall be awarded . . . .* Id. The RFP required that these services be provided by means of traditional service methods with travel agents at on-site facilities, and that offerors supply an on-line booking application as well. An agency pre-proposal conference was held on May 31, 2001, and was attended by representatives of all of the eventual offerors, after which the solicitation was amended and an October 11 closing time was set for receipt of initial proposals. The RFP set forth four evaluation criteria, technical acceptability/capability, participation of small and disadvantaged business concerns, experience/past performance, and transaction fees, in descending order of importance, and stated that *[t]he government intends to award based on the best overall value . . . .* Id. at 425.