BNUMBER:  B-271167.2
DATE:  October 18, 1996
TITLE:  The Travel Company

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

Matter of:The Travel Company

File:     B-271167.2

Date:October 18, 1996

Phyllis Doby for the protester.
Richard R. Kolkoski, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the 
agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly rejected as technically unacceptable a proposal in 
which the offeror failed to provide required detailed procedures and 
methodology for movement of mass casualties and human remains and 
declined to describe proposed equipment, after having been advised 
explicitly of these proposal deficiencies during discussions. 

DECISION

The Travel Company (TTC) protests the rejection of its proposal as 
technically unacceptable under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
F26600-95-R-0159, issued by the Department of the Air Force for 
commercial travel services for two Air Force bases located in Nevada 
and Idaho.  The protester maintains that the agency improperly 
rejected its proposal for failure to provide detailed procedures and 
methodology for movement of mass casualties and human remains and 
failure to describe all equipment proposed for use in performing the 
contract.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-priced contract to the 
responsible technically acceptable offeror whose proposal offered to 
provide the government with the highest overall discount and 
concession fee rates.  The solicitation advised offerors that the 
technical evaluation criteria included customer service and equipment 
and software capabilities.  Contingency support was a listed subfactor 
under the customer service criteria, and the RFP required offerors to 
provide an emergency plan which included specific details as to how 
the contractor would handle the movement of mass casualties with 60 
minutes notification for the duration of the emergency situation.  As 
part of the emergency plan, offerors were required to demonstrate the 
capability to confirm itineraries for the shipment of human 
remains/escorts both at government expense and C.O.D. by the families 
at the destination airport.  With respect to equipment and software 
capabilities, the RFP called for offerors to describe all equipment 
they proposed to use in performance of the requirements of the 
contract including automated reservation, ticketing, and accounting 
components, with an explanation of major components.  

Offerors were warned that cursory responses or responses which merely 
reiterated or reformulated the performance work statement (PWS) would 
not be considered responsive to the requirements of the RFP.  An 
offeror's technical proposal had to demonstrate that the offeror was 
capable; possessed sufficient technical expertise and experience; 
possessed sufficient resources; and was able to plan, organize, and 
use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to achieve the 
RFP requirements.  The solicitation further advised that a proposal 
had to be rated acceptable for all factors, subfactors, and items to 
receive an acceptable rating for the overall technical area.  
Proposals were to be evaluated as technically acceptable or 
unacceptable.  

TTC's proposal was among 10 received by the agency.  The initial 
evaluation resulted in all proposals being evaluated as either not 
ratable or unacceptable--susceptible of being made acceptable.  TTC's 
proposal was ranked eighth based solely on the proposed discount and 
concession fee rates.  Discussions were held with all offerors in the 
form of clarification requests (CRs) and deficiency reports (DRs).  
Four CRs and 12 DRs were issued to the protester.  The protester 
provided adequate responses to all of the CRs and for 10 of the DRs.  
However, the agency concluded that the protester's response to DRs 
relating to two of the factors were inadequate.  One DRs, involving 
customer service, advised TTC that its emergency support plan did not 
address the procedures and methodology for the movement of mass 
casualties and human remains.  TTC's response referred back to its 
original proposal without providing any further details.  The other 
DRs, involving equipment and software capabilities, advised TTC that 
its proposal did not address the equipment allocation, type, and 
amount to be located at the two Air Force bases and did not indicate 
the equipment to be located at the Mercury Satellite Facility.  The 
protester responded by providing the number of commercial reservation 
terminals (CRTs) it would use at each location but failed to enumerate 
the other types of equipment it planned to use to perform the 
contract.  

Based on the evaluation of these responses, the proposals of TTC and 
one other offeror were determined technically unacceptable.  Requests 
for best and final offers (BAFOs) were issued to the eight remaining 
offerors, and BAFOs were received from all eight.

TTC contends that it did not need to provide additional information 
concerning procedures for the movement of mass casualties because 
these procedures were discussed in its original proposal in its 
emergency support plan.  TTC further contends that the solicitation 
did not require the numerical details on equipment allocations that 
were required by the DRs.  The agency maintains that the evaluation 
was proper, and also asserts that since the protester submitted the 
eighth lowest offer and all seven technically acceptable offerors' 
discount fees were significantly higher than the protester's, the 
protester had no reasonable chance of receiving the award.

Where a protester alleges that an agency's technical evaluation was 
improper, we examine the record to determine whether the agency's 
judgment was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria.  
Allied-Signal Aerospace Co., B-250822; B-250822.2, Feb. 19, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  para.  201.  A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment 
without more, does not show that the agency's judgment was 
unreasonable.  Id.

Here, the record establishes that the agency had a reasonable basis 
for eliminating TTC's proposal from the competitive range.  The firm's 
revised proposal remained technically unacceptable because TTC failed 
to provide required information that was also specifically requested 
during discussions.  As explained above, the RFP required a 
description of all equipment proposed to be used during performance.  
TTC's proposal was found technically unacceptable under this criterion 
chiefly because it provided a general statement about the equipment it 
would use, but failed to indicate that it had sufficient quantities of 
equipment located in the appropriate facilities to meet the 
requirements.  Although, in response to the DRs, TTC provided specific 
information on the number and exact location of CRTs it would use, it 
did not provide this information on the other equipment it proposed to 
use.  We do not believe the agency was unreasonable in requiring the 
offeror to provide the number and type of equipment it proposed to use 
in order to get a clearer understanding of the protester's ability to 
perform, notwithstanding TTC's statement that the solicitation did not 
explicitly require such a listing. 

The RFP also required emergency plans that included specific details 
concerning the movement of mass casualties and human remains.  Under 
the scope of response of TTC's emergency response plan, TTC stated its 
company would handle the following emergency movements:  
outbound/inbound movement of military troops; transporting victims 
from disaster areas; and movement of human remains.  However, nowhere 
in its plan did TTC specifically address the transportation of human 
remains.  When specifically asked to provide this information during 
discussions, TTC merely referred to its original proposal.  In its 
comments on the agency report, TTC states that its use of the term 
"traveler" or "troop" in its emergency support plan includes both 
living and dead individuals.  However, since it is not disputed that 
the transportation of human remains requires a different type of 
preparation and equipment from that required for the transportation of 
living individuals, we think the agency reasonably determined that 
TTC's proposal contained informational deficiencies with regard to the 
former and failed to demonstrate TTC's ability to accomplish this 
requirement.

Since an agency may properly find a proposal technically unacceptable 
based on such informational deficiencies, Triton Marine Constr. Corp., 
B-250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  171, the Air Force's finding that 
TTC's proposal was technically unacceptable is not legally 
objectionable, particularly here, where the RFP provided that a 
proposal could be found unacceptable overall if it were found 
unacceptable in any one of the evaluation areas.  Moreover, in view of 
the fact that the agency had received seven fully technically 
acceptable proposals at more favorable discount and concession fee 
rates than TTC's, it is clear that under the evaluation scheme used 
here TTC's proposal had no reasonable chance of being selected for 
award.

Accordingly, the protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States