B-297986.2, Boersma Travel Services, November 17, 2006

B-297986.2 Nov 17, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Boersma Travel Services (BTS) protests the award of a contract to Duluth Travel, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-200-06-RP-0001, issued by the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) for commercial travel services. BTS challenges the evaluation. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297986.2, Boersma Travel Services, November 17, 2006 Decision Matter of: Boersma Travel Services File: B-297986.2 Date: November 17, 2006 James E. Kimble for the protester. Christopher S. Tiroff, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where record shows that evaluation, and resulting conclusion that awardee's proposal represented –best value,— were reasonable; although agency erroneously downgraded protester's proposal in two areas, these errors were not prejudicial, since record shows they were not sufficiently significant to affect award decision. DECISION Boersma Travel Services (BTS) protests the award of a contract to Duluth Travel, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-200-06-RP-0001, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for commercial travel services. BTS challenges the evaluation. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a service-disabled-veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set'aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite'quantity contract for a 6-month base period with 3 option years. This travel management center (TMC) contract, which will provide nationwide travel services for VA employees and veterans, was intended to consolidate VA's current TMC requirements, which were being met under the General Services Administration's (GSA) eTravel (eTS) initiative and other contracts. The RFP identified three alternative scenarios for contract performance, with the chosen alternative to be identified at the time of contract award. Alternative A involved TMC services without use of the current eTS. Alternative B involved the TMC doing all VA fulfillment and partial booking, with VA utilizing the current eTS for booking. Alternative C involved use of the selected firm's electronic booking system until eTS was fully implemented. Each scenario included its own estimated volumes.[1] Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of four factors, listed in descending order of importance--technical/management, price, past performance, and use of SDVOSBs. The technical/management factor included four equally weighted subfactors--technical approach, ability to provide alternative A, ability to provide alternative B, and interface with the eTS vendor. Price was to be evaluated for completeness, realism, and reasonableness based on the totals for each individual alternative and the total for all alternatives. Past performance was to be evaluated as a measure of the government's confidence in an offeror's ability to successfully perform the contract, and the SDVOSB factor was evaluated on the basis of the amount of work to be performed by SDVOSBs. The non'price factors were significantly more important than price. Award was to be made on a –best value— basis. Three offerors, including BTS and Duluth, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation team.[2] In addition, each offeror made an on-site oral presentation. The period of performance was adjusted, and offerors were given the opportunity to provide revised pricing. The final consensus evaluation ratings for BTS and Duluth (the only proposals relevant here) were as follows: BTS Duluth Technical/Management Yellow Green Technical Approach Green Green Alternative A Yellow Green Alternative B Yellow Green Interface Yellow Green Past Performance Moderate Low Use of SDVOSBs Green Green Evaluated Price[3] $2,669,798 $2,989,143 In making his award determination, the contracting officer concluded that the technical superiority of Duluth's proposal made it the best value despite its higher price. After receiving a debriefing, BTS filed this protest. BTS asserts that the agency unreasonably downgraded its proposal in several areas. In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is confined to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. United Def. LP, B'286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 75 at 10-11. The award here is supported by the record.