BNUMBER:  B-258271.4
DATE:  July 31, 1995
TITLE:  Continental Airlines, Inc.

**********************************************************************

REDACTED DECISION

A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a 
GAO Protective Order.  This version has been redacted or approved by 
the parties involved for public release.  

Matter of:   Continental Airlines, Inc.

File:        B-258271.4

Date:     July 31, 1995  

Sally B. Pfund, Esq., Robert J. Martinez, Esq., and Barbara E. Wixon, 
Esq., Williams & Jensen, for the protester.
Monica H. Roye, Esq., for USAir, Inc., and Joel Stephen Burton, Esq., 
Ginsburg, Feldman and Bress, for United Air Lines, Inc., interested 
parties.
Michelle Harrell, Esq., and Janet L. Harney, Esq., General Services 
Administration, for the agency.
Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that agency's evaluation of proposals for air passenger 
transportation services was inconsistent with the request for 
proposals because it did not give sufficient weight to nonstop service 
is denied where it is clear from the evaluation record that nonstop 
service was given great weight because it was considered in the 
evaluation of more than one evaluation factor/subfactor, received 
credit both in terms of more technical points and reductions to 
offered price in the evaluation process, and the source selection plan 
specifically reserved the agency's right to select a higher-priced 
offer of nonstop service instead of a lower-priced offer of direct or 
connecting service if the price of the nonstop offer was not more than 
[DELETED] percent higher.  
 
2.  Where the agency evaluated the technical merit of proposals, 
calculated the dollar value of significant technical advantages, and 
adjusted proposed prices to reflect the value of individual proposals' 
technical advantages, a cost/technical tradeoff was accomplished and 
the source selection authority was not required to perform any further 
cost/technical tradeoff analysis in support of the award decision.

DECISION

Continental Airlines, Inc. protests request for proposals (RFP) No. 
FCXA-T4-940004-N which was issued by the General Services 
Administration (GSA) to obtain air passenger transportation services 
for a large number of domestic and international routes in fiscal year 
1995.  Continental contends that GSA improperly evaluated 
proposals.[1]

We deny the protest.

Issued on May 3, 1994, the RFP solicited proposals to provide air 
transportation services for government employees traveling on official 
business.  The RFP contained 5,134 line items representing air 
transportation to and from specified city pairs, including 1,114 
international routes (between American and foreign cities) and 4,020 
domestic routes (between American cities).  The RFP contemplated award 
of several fixed-price contracts to fulfill the government's 
transportation requirements from the date of award until September 30, 
1995.  Initial offers were received from 20 air carriers by July 7, 
but due to delays related to an agency-level protest, General 
Accounting Office protests,[2] and the difficulty of evaluating a 
large number of offers, the contracts were not awarded until January 
1995.[3]

The RFP stated that contracts would be awarded on a line item-by-line 
item basis to the offeror whose offer conformed to the solicitation 
and represented the greatest value to the government, price and other 
factors considered.  The RFP further stated that award would be made 
to other than the low-priced offeror where the technical superiority 
of an offer outweighed the price differential and indicated that price 
would be considered more important the more equal proposals were in 
technical merit.

The technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of 
importance, were as follows: 

Factor 1:  conformance to solicitation minimum requirements;  
Factor 2:  availability of nonstop service;
Factor 3:  efficient service to the federal traveler.

Under evaluation factor 3, four evaluation subfactors were listed:  
(1) distribution of flights; (2) elapsed time; (3) total mileage; and 
(4) number of flights.

The protester contends that the source selection plan (SSP) used for 
evaluation of offers[4] was inconsistent with the RFP's stated 
evaluation criteria.  Specifically, Continental argues that GSA did 
not accord sufficient weight to evaluation factor 2 (availability of 
nonstop service) in the technical and price evaluations.   

In accord with the SSP, proposals were evaluated on a line 
item-by-line item basis on technical factors and price.[5]  Concerning 
technical merit, the evaluators first examined proposals to determine 
whether they conformed to the solicitation's minimum requirements 
(factor 1).  Next, the evaluators examined availability of nonstop 
service (factor 2), awarding [DELETED] for each nonstop flight and 
[DELETED] for each connecting[6] or direct flight[7] meeting a line 
item's minimum requirement.  The evaluation panel next evaluated 
efficient service to the federal traveler (factor 3).  Proposals were 
evaluated on distribution of flights (subfactor 1) to determine 
whether flights were offered in certain preferred time periods that 
were considered more efficient/less costly (i.e., flights departing 
between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.); for flights 
within a preferred time band proposals were awarded [DELETED] per 
proposal.  The evaluators also compared each offer's average elapsed 
flight time (subfactor 2) and mileage traveled (subfactor 3) with the 
shortest offered time and mileage, [DELETED].  Evaluation of number of 
flights (subfactor 4) was used only as a tie-breaker under which a 
greater number of flights in a market would be considered more 
advantageous if competing proposals were considered equal on all other 
factors, including price.  Based upon this analysis, an initial 
technical ranking of proposals was established.

Concerning price, the evaluators made additions or subtractions to the 
offered price for a line item to calculate the evaluated price.  
Nonstop service (factor 2) was first considered.  If a carrier offered 
nonstop service for a line item requiring only direct or connecting 
service, a [DELETED].[8]  Then, the evaluators compared the offer's 
elapsed flight time to the shortest flight time offered and, where 
appropriate, [DELETED] (see footnote 8).  Next, each offer was 
examined regarding efficiency/flight distribution (factor 3, subfactor 
1).  For long flights (i.e., more than 120 minutes), [DELETED] 
(representing meal and incidental expenses) [DELETED].  For short 
flights (i.e., less than 120 minutes), [DELETED] (representing meals, 
incidental and lodging expenses--the amount varied depending upon the 
authorized per diem rate for the locality) was made where the offer 
included [DELETED].  The SSP specified that, after evaluated prices 
were computed for a particular line item, the source selection 
authority (SSA) could award the line item to a carrier with a higher 
[DELETED].

Based on GSA's evaluation of technical factors and price, award was 
made to other than Continental, despite Continental's technical 
superiority, because Continental's evaluated prices were not the 
lowest.  In Continental's view, the services it offered, primarily 
nonstop flights, were not given the weight promised under the RFP 
evaluation scheme.  Specifically, the protester contends that, 
contrary to the RFP's stated scheme which indicated that nonstop 
service would be considered more important than efficiency, GSA's 
technical and price evaluations under the SSP gave more weight to 
evaluation factor 3 (efficient service) than to evaluation factor 2 
(nonstop service).  Regarding technical evaluations, Continental 
points out that in a two-flight minimum market (requiring two-inbound 
flights and two-outbound flights), the SSP allows the same [DELETED] 
for offering nonstop flights as for having four flights all departing 
in preferred time periods, giving equal weight to factor 2 (nonstop 
service) and factor 3/subfactor 1 (distribution of flights).[9]  Thus, 
Continental concludes that when the other three subfactors of factor 3 
(elapsed time, total mileage, and number of flights) are also 
considered, factor 3 was weighted more heavily than factor 2 in the 
technical evaluation.  Continental also asserts that factor 3 
(efficiency) was accorded more weight than factor 2 (nonstop flights) 
in the price evaluation.  In this regard, Continental points out that 
meeting the minimum requirement using nonstop flights was [DELETED] in 
evaluation of factor 2 while having no flights in preferred time 
periods was [DELETED] in the evaluation of efficiency/flight 
distribution (factor 3/subfactor 1) and there was [DELETED] accorded 
to shorter elapsed time (factor 3/subfactor 2).[10]  

We find unconvincing Continental's argument that the extra technical 
points awarded for nonstop service could be equaled by the technical 
points awarded for having flights in preferred time periods.  Under 
the SSP, the point advantage associated with meeting the minimum 
requirement exclusively with nonstop flights  [DELETED] [11] as the 
required number of flights increases, but the point total for flights 
in preferred time periods [DELETED].  Thus, the points awarded for 
flight distribution could possibly equal the extra points awarded for 
nonstop service in a two-flight market, but the extra points awarded 
for nonstop service will greatly exceed the maximum points awarded for 
preferred flight times by a great margin in all markets with a greater 
number of required flights.  Even in a two-flight market, in order for 
an offer of direct or connecting flights to make up for the [DELETED] 
accorded to an offer of nonstop flights, the offer of direct or 
connecting flights must provide [DELETED] while the offer of nonstop 
flights provides [DELETED].  According to GSA, because air carriers 
strive to accommodate the needs of business travelers who prefer to 
travel in the preferred time periods, the chance is "miniscule" that 
the situation described by Continental would arise.  The evaluation 
documents for the protested line items show that there was no instance 
where Continental provided no flights at preferred times and that the 
scenario posed by Continental did not occur.  In fact, the record 
shows that Continental was the primary beneficiary of the SSP's 
weighting of preferred-time points because, in every case, 
Continental's proposal was ranked first for preferred-time points, 
although in some cases the awardee received an equal ranking.  Thus, 
the awardee's proposal never was able to negate the technical 
advantage Continental's proposal received by virtue of providing 
nonstop flights.

We also find unconvincing Continental's argument that evaluation of 
flight distribution (i.e., preferred times) and shorter elapsed time 
received more weight than nonstop service under the price evaluation.  
As noted above, Continental's proposal always had as many or more 
flights in preferred time periods than the awardee's proposal and, 
therefore, Continental's proposal consistently received price 
evaluation benefits for this subfactor that were equal to or greater 
than the awardee's proposal.  Regarding evaluation of elapsed time, 
even though there was [DELETED] that did not mean elasped time was 
weighted more heavily than nonstop service.  Nonstop flights are 
shorter in duration than direct or connecting flights, and, therefore, 
an offer of nonstop service always received extra credit in terms of 
[DELETED] nonstop service and shorter elapsed time.  Essentially, 
nonstop service was emphasized twice in the price evaluation.  
Moreover, the record shows that for the protested line items 
Continental always offered flights that were shorter in duration than 
the awardee's and Continental's offered price always was [DELETED].

In addition, nonstop service was considered in that the SSP 
specifically reserved to the agency the right to award a line item to 
an offeror regardless of the results of the technical and price 
evaluations in any case where an offer met the minimum requirement in 
a connecting or direct service market entirely with nonstop service if 
the nonstop offer did not [DELETED].  Thus, consistent with the RFP, 
nonstop service was given great weight and obviously was considered 
more important than price.  

In any event, as noted above, the record shows that the circumstances 
necessary for technical points for preferred times to negate the 
points awarded for nonstop service simply did not occur for the 
protested line items.  Also, as noted above, the record shows that 
Continental was the primary beneficiary of evaluation of flight 
distribution and elapsed time.  Thus, Continental suffered no 
competitive prejudice from the SSP's weighting of evaluation 
factors/subfactors.  See Johnson Controls World Servs. Inc., B-257431; 
B-257431.5, Oct. 5, 1994, 94-2 CPD  222.

The protester also contends that GSA failed to conduct a 
cost/technical tradeoff analysis.  Continental asserts that, because 
its proposal was technically superior (i.e., included a greater number 
of nonstop flights) to the awardee's for each line item, its proposal 
represented the best value to the government.  Because technical merit 
was more important than price, Continental concludes that it should 
have been awarded contracts for the eight protested line items in 
spite of its higher offered prices.  In a related matter, the 
protester argues that in lieu of conducting a proper cost/technical 
tradeoff analysis, GSA relied upon the so-called [DELETED] of the SSP 
for deciding when to accept a higher-priced, nonstop offer for a 
connecting or direct service market.  Under the SSP's [DELETED] GSA 
reserved the right to [DELETED] accept a nonstop offer where 
connecting or direct service was required so long as the offered price 
of the nonstop offer [DELETED].  Continental contends that GSA 
arbitrarily compared offered prices when, in fact, it made more sense 
to compare evaluated prices in making this decision.  

The agency responds that it did, in fact, conduct a cost/technical 
tradeoff analysis.  While not every evaluation factor was given a 
[DELETED] or resulted in a [DELETED], GSA points out that all factors 
were considered by the evaluation panel in ranking proposals on 
technical merit and technical factors that were readily susceptible to 
quantification were evaluated as [DELETED].  GSA also reports that the 
technical evaluation results on all factors, the offered and evaluated 
prices, and the panel's recommendations for award were all set out for 
the SSA's review in selecting proposals for contract award.  The 
agency reports that, in this manner, the technical merit of each offer 
was weighed against the cost of the service offered and a 
determination made regarding which offer was most advantageous to the 
government.  

It is clear from the record that GSA gave serious consideration to 
determining the value of various technical advantages.  As discussed 
above, the evaluation included assumptions and calculations that 
estimated such things as the value of the typical government worker's 
time, lodging, and meal expenses that would be incurred [DELETED].  
While not every technical factor was [DELETED] based upon the SSP's 
unchallenged assumptions, GSA calculated the monetary benefits 
attributable to certain significant technical advantages (i.e., 
nonstop service, preferred-time departures, and flying time).  After 
making an initial technical ranking of the proposals for each line 
item, GSA proceeded to adjust proposed prices based upon their 
individual technical merit.  While the evaluation record contains no 
narrative discussion of the value of technically superior features of 
proposals, it is obvious from the record that technical merit was 
weighed against cost advantages.  Even where the SSA does not 
specifically discuss the cost/technical tradeoff in the selection 
decision document, we will not object where, as here, the tradeoff is 
supported by the record.  See Management Sys. Designers, Inc., 
B-244383.3, Sept. 30, 1991, 91-2 CPD  310, and cases cited.  Because 
the SSP formula already accounted for both technical merit and costs 
and GSA evaluated the technical merit of proposals, calculated the 
dollar value of significant technical advantages, and adjusted 
proposed prices to reflect the value of individual proposals' 
technical advantages, a cost/technical tradeoff was accomplished; in 
these circumstances, the SSA was not required to perform any further 
cost/technical tradeoff analysis in support of the award decision.  
See Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., B-255286.2, Apr. 12, 1994, 94-1 CPD  
306.  

Concerning the SSP's [DELETED] GSA does not agree that it should have 
compared evaluated prices instead of proposed prices.  The agency 
argues that use of evaluated prices would have "skewed" the evaluation 
too far in favor of technical advantages, such as nonstop service, 
because evaluated fares already included price adjustments made for 
technical advantages.

Contracting officials enjoy broad discretion in the selection of 
evaluation factors.  See Renow, Inc., B-251055, Mar. 5, 1993, 93-1 CPD  
210.  In order to establish the unreasonableness of the evaluation 
plan, it is not enough that the protester disagrees with the agency's 
judgment or that the protester can point to alternative methodologies 
available to the agency; instead, the agency's evaluation must be 
shown to lack a reasonable basis.  See Payco Am. Corp., B-253668, Oct. 
8, 1993, 93-2 CPD  214.  In view of the fact that proposals already 
received extra credit in the technical evaluation for the technical 
advantages they contained, and because GSA already carefully estimated 
how much the significant technical benefits were worth and used those 
estimates to adjust proposed prices in its cost/technical tradeoff 
analysis, and especially because the airfares proposed would be the 
price the government would have to pay, we think that GSA's approach 
was reasonable.

In sum, we conclude that:  (1) the evaluation gave sufficient weight 
to nonstop service consistent with the RFP; (2) the evaluation 
incorporated a cost/technical tradeoff analysis; and (3) the agency's 
[DELETED] analysis reasonably required comparison of proposed prices 
for determining whether it was worth paying a higher price for a 
technically superior proposal.  In view of these conclusions, we deny 
Continental's protest of line items 2206, 2234, 2259, 2271, and 2434, 
which was based upon the above-resolved arguments.  Continental also  
protested line item 2256, raising the same arguments and adding that 
GSA erred by giving United, the awardee, credit for having two 
nonstops flights instead of one.  However, after adjusting upward 
United's evaluated price to reflect the correct number of nonstop 
flights, United's evaluated price is just [DELETED] while 
Continental's is [DELETED].  Thus, because Continental's evaluated 
price is [DELETED] more than United's, Continental was not prejudiced 
by the agency's error.  See Johnson Controls World Servs. Inc., supra.

Continental also protests that GSA made factual errors in its 
evaluations of line items 1063 and 3365, resulting in improper awards 
to United.  Continental contends that GSA failed to give its proposal 
credit for two nonstop flights (one in each direction) for each line 
item even though its proposal offered the nonstop flights.  
Continental asserts that if the evaluation had given it credit for the 
nonstop service, its proposal would have been deemed most advantageous 
to the government and it would have been awarded a contract for these 
line items.

The solicitation advised offerors that GSA would evaluate offers using 
data from the "Official Airline Guide" (OAG), effective for the period 
from October 1 through October 7, 1994; that OAG had compiled the 
pertinent schedule information in a computer database under its 
contract with GSA; and that GSA would provide each offeror with a 
computer disk containing the schedule information that would be used 
in the evaluation.  The RFP also cautioned that:

     "If the offeror's information is other than that shown in the 
     Government provided data, the offeror must supply additional 
     information with its offer if the offeror wants the Government to 
     evaluate the offer on other than the Government provided data. . 
     . .  Any data submitted by the offeror must, for each market, 
     include the departure and arrival times, and if direct or 
     connecting service the number of stops/connections for each 
     flight as well as the connect point(s), if applicable. . . ."  
     [Emphasis added.]
 
The record shows that GSA provided a data disk to each offeror, 
including Continental, and, when that disk was found to contain 
errors, GSA provided each offeror with a corrected disk.  Based on the 
information contained in the corrected disk, GSA evaluated 
Continental's offers on line item 1063 as providing only one nonstop 
flight in each direction and on line item 3365 as providing no 
nonstops at all. 

The RFP clearly put offerors on notice that the data disk information 
would be evaluated unless the offer contained an indication that the 
offeror wanted its proposal to be evaluated on other than the 
information contained in the disk and contained additional information 
needed for evaluation (e.g., departure and arrival times).  Our 
perusal of Continental's offer shows that Continental's offer provided 
no nonstop flights at all for line item 3365.[12]  Thus, GSA correctly 
did not give Continental's proposal credit for nonstop service in the 
evaluation of this line item.  Regarding line item 1063, Continental's 
offer did, in fact, provide four nonstop flights rather than the two 
nonstop flights for which it received credit in the evaluation.  
However, Continental did not highlight or otherwise point out to GSA 
that the offer in any way differed from the data disk to be evaluated.  
The number of nonstop flights was only one number in one line of a 
computer printout including more than 5,000 line items and comprising 
154 pages of Continental's proposal.  As this one change from the 
computer disk's information was not highlighted, circled, underlined, 
or differentiated in any other way from the thousands of other 
numbers, we do not believe that the protester fulfilled its obligation 
to point out to GSA that certain information on the disk was not to be 
evaluated as it was superseded by new information.  In these 
circumstances, we cannot fault GSA's evaluation of Continental's 
offer.

The protest is denied.

     Robert P. Murphy
     General Counsel                                                                                    

1. Continental initially protested that contracts for 23 line items 
were awarded incorrectly, but Continental subsequently withdrew its 
protest under some line items and was awarded contracts for others.  
Only eight line items, representing domestic routes, are still being 
protested (line items 1063, 2206, 2234, 2256, 2259, and 3365 were 
awarded to United, and line items 2271 and 2434 were awarded to 
USAir).

2. See American Airlines, Inc., B-258271, Dec. 29, 1994, 95-1 CPD  5.  
Also, on February 24, 1995, we dismissed a protest (B-258271.3) filed 
by USAir, Inc. as untimely.

3. A number of line items were deleted by solicitation amendment and 
no offers were received for many routes.  Thus, contracts with an 
estimated value of $869 million for the 8-month basic contract period 
were awarded for 4,822 line items.

4. Roughly 5,000 line items were evaluated using the same SSP, but the 
protester asserts that, if we sustain its protest, corrective action 
should only apply to the eight line items that are the subject of its 
protest.  Continental was awarded contracts for 324 other line items 
under the protested SSP methodology.

5. In this decision, we will describe the SSP's basic scheme.  
However, for the sake of clarity, we will omit much of the detail 
included in the SSP, and we will not attempt to describe the many 
variations that could have arisen under this multi-market procurement. 

6. A connecting flight is a flight between the origin and destination 
points with a stop or stops and involves changing planes.

7. A direct flight is a flight between the origin and destination 
points with a stop or stops but no change of planes.

8. The SSP contained a complex calculation which determined that each 
[DELETED] a typical government worker was traveling was worth 
[DELETED] nonstop flights were evaluated as saving [DELETED] was 
computed by [DELETED].

9. Continental provided this example.  In a two-flight market, an 
airline offering all nonstop flights receives [DELETED] while an 
airline offering only connecting flights receives [DELETED] 
differential for factor 2.  An airline offering flights in all four 
preferred time periods receives [DELETED] while an airline offering no 
flights in a preferred time period receives [DELETED] differential for 
factor 3, subfactor 1.

10. Under the SSP, the difference in elapsed time (in minutes) between 
the offer of the shortest time and the offer being evaluated [DELETED] 
since, as noted above, [DELETED].

11. For example, the SSP provides that in an eight-flight market 
(requiring eight flights inbound and 8 outbound) an offer meeting the 
requirement with all nonstop flights would [DELETED] while an offer 
meeting the requirement with connecting or direct flights would 
[DELETED].

12. Both GSA and Continental provided us with copies of Continental's 
offer on line items 1063 and 3365.