WingGate Travel, Inc.

B-412921 Jul 01, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights WingGate Travel, Inc., of Overland Park, Kansas, protests the award of a contract to Cruise Ventures, Inc. d/b/a CI Travel, of Norfolk, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15-233-SOL-00024, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for commercial travel office services in support of Department of Defense military entrance processing stations (MEPS). WingGate argues that the agency's evaluation of its past performance was improper. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  WingGate Travel, Inc. File:  B-412921 Date:  July 1, 2016 Josephine L. Ursini, Esq., for the protester. Bryant S. Banes, Esq., Sean D. Forbes, Esq., and Stormy N. Mayfield, Esq., Neel, Hooper & Banes, P.C., for Cruise Ventures, Inc. d/b/a CI Travel, an intervenor. Brian C. Caney, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation is denied where the agency reasonably considered both the relevance and quality of the protester’s references; the agency reasonably took into account the size of the offeror’s prior work, in accordance with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria, when assessing performance confidence.  DECISION WingGate Travel, Inc., of Overland Park, Kansas, protests the award of a contract to Cruise Ventures, Inc. d/b/a CI Travel, of Norfolk, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15-233-SOL-00024, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for commercial travel office services in support of Department of Defense military entrance processing stations (MEPS).[1]  WingGate argues that the agency’s evaluation of its past performance was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP,[2] issued on June 15, 2015, as a small-business set-aside, contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with fixed-priced task orders for a base year with four 1-year options.[3], [4]  RFP at 37-40.[5]  In general terms, the RFP’s performance work statement (PWS) required the contractor to provide all necessary personnel, materials, and facilities to perform the required travel management support services (i.e., authorizations, reservations, ticketing, fulfillment, reporting, and management) in support of 66 separate MEPS locations throughout the United States.  RFP at 41-42. The solicitation established that contract award would be made on a best-value basis, based on three evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  technical; price; and past performance.  RFP Amend. 002, at 312.  The technical factor consisted of five subfactors, also in descending order of importance:  understanding of the MEPS travel process; technical approach; corporate experience; implementation/transition; and management plan.  Id.  The nonprice factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. Ten offerors, including CI Travel and WingGate, submitted proposals by the August 28 closing date.  An agency technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated offerors’ proposals under the nonprice factors using various adjectival rating schemes:  outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable for the technical factor and subfactors; and substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence for the past performance factor.[6]  The final evaluation ratings and prices of the CI Travel and WingGate proposals were as follows:   CI Travel WingGate Technical[7] Good Good Price $5,938,033 $6,831,834 Past Performance Satisfactory Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, TEP Report for WingGate, Feb. 26, 2016, at 798-810; Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, Mar. 10, 2016, at 820. Additionally, the agency evaluators made narrative findings (e.g., strengths, weaknesses) in support of the ratings assigned under both the technical and past performance evaluation factors.  See AR, Tab 7, TEP Report for WingGate, Feb. 26, 2016, at 798-810; Tab 8, Past Performance Evaluation Report, Feb. 26, 2016, at 811-818. The contracting officer, as source selection authority (SSA), subsequently reviewed the technical and past performance evaluation reports.  The SSA found that although CI Travel and WingGate had different numbers and types of technical strengths which significantly benefitted the government, the offerors’ proposals were essentially technically equal.  AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, Mar.