AirTrak Travel etal., B-292101; B-292101.2; B-292101.3; B-292101.4; B-292101.5, June 30, 2003

AirTrak Travel etal., B-292101; B-292101.2; B-292101.3; B-292101.4; B-292101.5, June 30, 2003 TITLE: AirTrak Travel etal., B-292101; B-292101.2; B-292101.3; B-292101.4; B-292101.5, June 30, 2003 BNUMBER: B-292101; B-292101.2; B-292101.3; B-292101.4; B-292101.5 DATE: June 30, 2003 ********************************************************************** AirTrak Travel etal., B-292101; B-292101.2; B-292101.3; B-292101.4; B-292101.5, June 30, 2003 Decision Matter of: AirTrak Travel etal. File: B-292101; B-292101.2; B-292101.3; B-292101.4; B-292101.5 Date:June 30, 2003 Josephine L. Ursini, Esq., for AirTrak Travel et al., and Lars E. Anderson, Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., and Benjamin A. Winter, Esq., Venable, Baetjer and Howard, for Alexander Travel Ltd. and El Sol Travel. Capt. Anissa Parekh, Robert E. Dudley, Esq., Maj. Art J. Coulter, and Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Attorneys' requests for admission to GAO protective order are granted, notwithstanding agency's objections, where the attorneys have provided evidence that they are not competitive decisionmakers for a client (or another relevant firm), which has not been rebutted by the agency. 2. Solicitation for a fixed-priced contract to provide travel management services which required contractors to use developmental software did not place undue risks on offerors where the agency identified the performance uncertainties and provided sufficient information to allow offerors to intelligently prepare their proposals. 3. Solicitation contemplating multiple awards to small businesses for travel management services, which grouped the 87 nationwide locations into 28 *travel areas,* did not constitute improper bundling in violation of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, where the procurement approach was reasonably required to satisfy the agency's legitimate needs. 4. Under a solicitation contemplating multiple awards for travel management services in 28 *travel areas,* agency, which provided general advice to the offerors as to what it would consider in deciding how many travel areas an offeror, apparently in line for award under these travel areas, would be capable of performing, is not required to furnish further precise details about how it would perform this aspect of the evaluation. 5. Where an amendment to a solicitation, issued after proposals were received, significantly changed the offered contractual relationship of the parties by shifting significant risk to the government, the agency was required to reopen the competition to firms that did not submit proposals because the record evidenced that some firms may not have submitted proposals because of this risk. 6. Price evaluation scheme for travel management procurement does not provide a reasonable basis for comparing the relative costs of the proposals, where prices for categories of services which will not be provided are part of the scheme. DECISION Several small businesses protest the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. DABL01-03-R-1001, issued as a small business set-aside by the Department of the Army, Information Technology, E-Commerce and Commercial Contracting Center, for travel services. They protest that the solicitation places undue risk and burden on the offerors, that the agency has not disclosed sufficient information to enable offerors to intelligently prepare proposals, that the requirements were improperly bundled into one large multi-award procurement, that the grouping of the travel locations for each award was unreasonable, that the evaluation scheme did not sufficiently detail how awards would be made, that the agency improperly failed to reopen the competition after issuing a material amendment, and that the price evaluation scheme was defective. We sustain the protests in part and deny them in part. BACKGROUND This procurement is part of the Department of Defense's (DoD) effort to reengineer the DoD travel process. DoD identified this process during the National Performance Review in 1993 as being in need of reengineering because it was fragmented, inefficient, expensive to administer, and occasionally an impediment to mission accomplishment. In 1995, DoD established what became the Defense Travel System Program Management Office (DTS/PMO), whose mission was to acquire travel services DoD-wide, and support mission requirements, reduce costs, and provide superior customer service.[2] The DTS/PMO initiated the Defense Travel System Program to procure a software-based travel system, designated the DTS.