B-296090.2; B-296090.3, Kola Nut Travel, Inc., June 17, 2005

B-296090.2; B-296090.3, Kola Nut Travel, Inc., June 17, 2005 TITLE: B-296090.2; B-296090.3, Kola Nut Travel, Inc., June 17, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296090.2; B-296090.3 DATE: June 17, 2005 ************************************************************ B-296090.2; B-296090.3, Kola Nut Travel, Inc., June 17, 2005 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: Kola Nut Travel, Inc. File: B-296090.2; B-296090.3 Date: June 17, 2005 Bryant S. Banes, Esq., for the protester. Josephine L. Ursini, Esq., for Ravenel Brothers, Inc., an intervenor. Major Frank A. March, Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester's assertion that awardees are part of a "conglomerate" and should not qualify as small businesses constitutes a challenge to the size status of the awardees, an issue that is not for consideration by GAO. 2. Where awardees' consultant will earn a fee based on profits earned during the awardees' performance of the contract, and there is no evidence of improper influence on government officials regarding the contract award decisions, the agreement between the awardees and the consultant does not violate the statutory and regulatory limitations on contingent fees. 3. Agency's evaluation of protester's proposed approach is reasonable where contemporaneous evaluation documents explain the basis for agency concerns and protester offers no substantive rebuttal of those concerns. DECISION Kola Nut Travel, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of contracts to Ravenel Brothers, Inc. and AirTrak Travel for travel management and related services under request for proposals (RFP) Nos. W91-QUZ-04-R-0003 and W91-QUZ-04-R-0007. Kola Nut maintains that the contract awards reflect an improper contingent fee agreement between the awardees and a consultant, and that the agency improperly evaluated Kola Nut's proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army published the two solicitations at issue here in February 2004, seeking proposals to provide travel management and related services for Department of Defense (DOD) travelers whose duty stations are within several specified travel areas. RFP No. W91-QUZ-04-R-0007 sought travel services for military entrance processing station (MEPS) locations, and is referred to in the decision as the MEPS solicitation; RFP No. W91-QUZ-04-R-0003 sought travel services for non-MEPS locations, and we refer to it as the non-MEPS solicitation. Agency Report (AR) at 2.[1] Both solicitations contemplated separate contract awards for each of the specified travel areas; accordingly, the agency performed separate evaluations and source selection decisions with regard to each area. AR at 2-3. All travel areas under both solicitations were set aside for small businesses, and offerors were permitted to submit proposals for any or all areas. Kola Nut's protest challenges the agency's contract awards to Ravenel for travel areas 73 and 91 under the non-MEPS soliciation, and to AirTrak for travel area 100 under the MEPS solicitation. Both solicitations provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical,[2] price,[3] and performance risk. With regard to proposed price, the solicitation recognized that travel service contractors may receive airline commissions, as well as utilization fees from global distribution system (GDS) providers,[4] but recognized that some uncertainty existed regarding the future receipt of such commissions and fees.[5] In this regard, the solicitations contained the following clauses: G.17 CESSATION OR REDUCTION OF AIRLINE COMMISSIONS G.17.1 Where Contractors are receiving Airline Commissions, these commissions shall be factored by the Travel Agencies into their proposed fixed price transaction fees identified in their proposal. G.17.2 If after contract award, and during the period of performance of the contract, the payment of commissions are reduced or suspended by the Airlines, the contractor will be entitled to an equitable price adjustment. . . . . G.21 CESSATION OR REDUCTION OF GDS UTILIZATION FEES G.21.1 GDS utilization fees are currently being paid by the GDS providers (SABRE, WORLDSPAN, APOLLO/GALILEO and AMADEUS) to Commercial Travel Agencies.