BNUMBER:  B-271262.2
DATE:  July 25, 1996
TITLE:  Omega World Travel, Inc.

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

Matter of:Omega World Travel, Inc.

File:     B-271262.2

Date:July 25, 1996

Mark Pestronk, Esq., for the protester.
Tim Burke, WorldTravel Partners, an intervenor.
Lisa J. Obayashi, Esq., and Alden F. Abbott, Esq., Department of 
Commerce, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that awardee's offer of airline travel upgrades from coach 
class to business/premium class was an improper gift to the government 
because premium class travel is prohibited for government employees is 
denied; Federal Travel Regulations permit business/premium class 
travel for long-haul international flights and awardee's proposal 
indicated offer was only for this type of allowable upgrade.  
2.  Protest against downgrading of protester's past performance based 
on evaluators' personal knowledge of complaints about protester's 
performance under incumbent contract is denied, where the evaluation 
judgments were documented in sufficient detail by internal agency 
memorandum and surveys of agency travelers to show reasonableness of 
evaluation.

DECISION

Omega World Travel, Inc. protests the award of a contract to 
WorldTravel Partners (WTP) under request for offers (RFO) No. 
52-PAPT-5-00047, issued by the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), 
Department of Commerce, for travel management services.[1]  Omega 
challenges the evaluation and other aspects of the award process.

We deny the protest.

The RFO contemplated award of a no-cost contract under which the 
compensation to the contractor was limited to commissions and fees 
paid by the commercial travel industry.  Technical proposals were 
called for and were to be evaluated under the following factors:  
office location/ease of accessibility by PTO employees; experience in 
providing government travel services; experience in providing 
international travel services; and customer service/satisfaction/past 
performance.  To the extent proposals were evaluated as technically 
equal, the determining factor was to be the amount of proposed 
payments to the government in the form of rebates or concession fees, 
based on the amount of domestic air ticket sales.  Award was to be 
made to the offeror providing the best value to the government.  

Ten firms, including Omega and WTP, submitted proposals.  After 
evaluation of best and final offers, WTP's proposal was the highest 
ranked with 88.31 (out of 100 possible) points (weighted), and a 
proposed rebate of 2.01 percent; the second-ranked proposal received 
85.01 points and proposed a rebate of 3 percent; Omega's fifth-ranked 
proposal received 59.98 points and offered a rebate of 5 percent.  
Based on the evaluation results, the selection official determined 
that WTP's offer represented the best value to the government and made 
award to the firm.

IMPROPER UPGRADES

Omega argues that WTP's offer included a "gift" to the 
government--free upgrades to business-class airline seating on 
international flights--which violated government ethics standards (5 
C.F.R.  sec.  2635.201 et seq.) because business/premium travel is 
prohibited for government employees.  Omega concludes that WTP's offer 
should have been rejected, or at least downgraded, on this basis.  
Omega's allegation is based on handwritten notations on the evaluation 
sheets[2] under the experience in providing international travel 
services factor.  In this regard, one evaluator noted  "[b]usiness 
class on long-haul flights" as a strength for WTP.  Conversely, the 
same evaluator noted "[n]o mention of knowledge as to . . . upgrades 
on long-haul flights" as a weakness for Omega.  The protester surmises 
from these notations that WTP's proposal score was upgraded for 
offering prohibited upgrades.  

This argument is without merit.  Contrary to the premise of the 
protester's argument, business/premium class air travel is not 
prohibited.  Rather, the applicable Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 
41 C.F.R.  sec.  301-3.3, allows premium- class travel under limited 
circumstances, such as "long-haul" international flights.  More 
specifically, while the FTR provides that "[i]t is the policy of the 
government that employees who use commercial air carriers for domestic 
and international travel on official business shall use coach-class 
airline accommodations," the FTR nevertheless provides that 
premium-class may be used under certain circumstances, including when 
travel is between "origin and destination points which are separated 
by several time zones, and either the origin or destination point is 
outside the continental United States (CONUS), and the scheduled 
flight time (including stopovers) is in excess of 14 hours."  41 
C.F.R.  sec.  301-3.3(d)(1) and (d)(5)(ix).  Thus, the evaluator's 
notation regarding WTP's offer of business-class travel, by itself, 
gives no indication of any impropriety, either in the offer or the 
evaluation. 

Moreover, WTP's proposal clearly establishes that the firm understood 
that upgrading of generally required coach-class was permitted only in 
limited circumstances, such as for the above-described "long-haul" 
international flights.  Specifically, WTP's proposal indicates under 
the heading "Transportation" and subheading "Premium Class Travel" 
that "WTP understands that premium class travel is prohibited by the 
Federal Travel Regulations except for specific, pre-authorized 
instances" and "WTP shall receive written permission from PTO's 
Project Coordinator prior to issuing tickets for 
other-than-coach-class transportation."  Additionally, under 
"International Travel Services," the proposal describes one of WTP's 
employees as "approved by the [General Services Administration] to 
provide quality control and fare audit services for government funded 
international itineraries--including, but not limited to . . . the use 
of business class services on long-haul flights."  Thus, nothing in 
WTP's proposal raised ethical considerations, and there is no basis to 
object to the evaluation of WTP's proposal as superior to Omega's in 
this area.

PAST PERFORMANCE 

Omega maintains that its proposal improperly was downgraded under past 
performance based on the undocumented personal knowledge of the 
evaluators.[3]  This allegation is based on narrative comments 
contained in the evaluation score sheets for two of the three 
evaluators, which state "info provided was responsive, but personal 
experience resulted in lower score" and "see [Solicitor of PTO's] 
memo" under weaknesses.  The protester complains that, because the 
personal experience and Solicitor's memorandum referred to in the 
narrative comments were not included in the contemporaneous evaluation 
record, and the third evaluator made no narrative comment under 
weaknesses in this area, the evaluation was inadequately supported.  
In contrast to the evaluation score sheets, the protester cites a 
response to a reference check questionnaire (provided by the agency to 
references at random) which rated the firm "good" (under a rating 
scale of good, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory).  

The agency explains that the evaluators' personal knowledge of Omega's 
past performance was based on numerous documented and undocumented 
complaints from PTO travelers.  The documented evidence in the protest 
record includes two internal PTO memoranda to the Associate 
Commissioner of PTO--one dated August 24, 1995, from the PTO 
Solicitor, and one dated October 18, 1994, from the Assistant 
Secretary and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, both complaining 
about Omega's travel services.  The record also includes responses to 
surveys (in preprinted questionnaire form entitled "travel 
evaluations," and referred to by the agency as "quality control 
surveys") from 16 PTO travelers who used Omega's travel services from 
the fall of 1992 to the fall of 1994; they are identified by the 
traveler's name and/or travel order number.  Additionally, the agency 
has submitted post-protest declarations from the evaluators explaining 
the basis for their personal knowledge of the quality of Omega's 
service and the basis for their downgrading the firm's proposal, which 
include the above-described documented complaints, as well as other 
undocumented complaints.

An evaluator's personal knowledge of an offeror may be properly 
considered in a past performance evaluation.  TRESP Assocs., Inc.; 
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc., B-258322.5; B-258322.6, Mar. 9, 1995, 
96-1 CPD  para.  8.  More specifically, where the solicitation provides for 
references to be used in the evaluation, as here, the agency may 
consider the unsatisfactory past performance of an offeror under a 
recent contract with the agency, thus, in effect, furnishing its own 
reference.  G. Marine Diesel; Phillyship, B-232619; B-232619.2, Jan. 
27, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  90.  In an evaluation which takes into account 
the agency's own knowledge of offerors, the fundamental requirement 
that evaluation judgments be documented in sufficient detail to show 
that they are reasonable and not arbitrary still must be met.  Id.  

The evaluation of Omega's past performance was reasonable based on the 
evaluation record, as supplemented by the internal PTO memoranda and 
surveys of PTO travelers, as well as the post-protest declarations by 
the evaluators.  First, contrary to the protester's primary 
contention, the fact that the extrinsic evidence of Omega's past 
performance relied on by the evaluators (i.e., the internal PTO 
memoranda and surveys of PTO travelers) was not physically included in 
or attached to the evaluation score sheets does not render them 
invalid as sources of information available to the evaluators, since 
the record, when read as a whole, shows that the evaluators relied on 
this evidence, the evidence was submitted into the protest record, and 
it clearly supports the reasonableness of the evaluation.  In this 
regard, while we accord more weight to contemporaneous documents in 
determining whether an evaluation was reasonable, our review is based 
on all information in the record, including documentation prepared in 
response to the protest contentions.  DynCorp, 71 Comp. Gen. 129 
(1991), 91-2 CPD  para.  575.  The evaluators' declarations, which are not 
disputed by the protester, in two instances indicate reliance on the 
internal PTO memoranda and surveys of PTO travelers--one of the 
evaluators states, she "read" the memorandum from PTO's Solicitor; 
another evaluator states, she was "in receipt" of the memorandum 
written to the Associate Commissioner of PTO (which the agency 
explains was the previously described memorandum from PTO's Assistant 
Secretary and Commissioner) and surveys of PTO travelers; and all 
three evaluators state they were aware of undocumented complaints 
about the quality of Omega's performance.  

Further, notwithstanding that one or more positive reference 
questionnaires may have been received,[4] the extrinsic evidence 
clearly establishes that there were problems with the quality of 
Omega's performance.  Specifically, the PTO Solicitor's memorandum 
details several instances of poor service she experienced with Omega, 
including a 3-hour layover in Chicago when an earlier connecting 
flight to her destination was available.  The PTO's Assistant 
Secretary and Commissioner's memorandum details numerous instances of 
poor service by Omega, including failure "to provide boarding passes 
and seat assignments prior to going to the airport for trans-Atlantic 
flights," failure to utilize "computers that show there are flights 
between Zurich and Geneva," and failure to "book a traveler in 
business-class where the duration of the flight calls for it."  Of the 
16 surveys of PTO travelers utilizing Omega's services, 8 rated 
Omega's services "substandard" overall (out of possible ratings of 
excellent, very good, standard, and substandard), 5 "standard,"     1 
"very good," and 2 no ratings/blank.  Most of the surveys included 
negative comments, including those from four of the travelers who 
rated Omega standard and the one traveler who rated Omega very 
good.[5]  

Based on these numerous documented complaints about Omega's past 
performance, which were the basis of the personal knowledge of two of 
the evaluators and which are undisputed by the protester, we have no 
basis to question the downgrading of Omega's proposal under past 
performance.  (We note that, while the third evaluator's score sheet 
did not include any specific narrative comments under weaknesses, it 
is clear from her declaration that she was aware of the same kinds of 
complaints that appeared in the documented complaints.[6]) 
   
ORAL PRESENTATION

Omega argues that the evaluation was conducted on an unequal basis 
because WTP allegedly was permitted to make an oral presentation, or 
discussions were conducted with the firm, while no similar 
opportunities were given to the protester.  This allegation is based 
on one evaluator's narrative comment, "beautiful presentation, 
organized" on her score sheet.  In response, the agency has submitted 
a declaration from this evaluator explaining that her comment "meant 
that WTP's written proposal was beautifully presented in an organized 
manner" [emphasis added] and "[a]t no time did [she] participate in 
any oral presentation by WTP."  The agency also filed a supplemental 
declaration from all three evaluators and the contracting officer 
stating that "neither oral presentations, nor oral discussions of any 
type whatsoever, related to [the solicitation], were ever conducted or 
held during any phase of the procurement or acquisition."  In the 
absence of any evidence that WTP made an oral presentation to the 
agency or that the agency conducted discussions with the firm, Omega's 
allegation is pure speculation and not a valid basis of protest.[7]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. Omega was the incumbent contractor for the services.

2. Because the protester's counsel did not apply for admission to the 
protective order issued in this case, he and the protester received 
only a redacted agency report, which included WTP's evaluation scores, 
but not its proposal.

3. Had Omega received all available points, its score under the 
customer service/satisfaction/past performance factor, the most 
important factor, its total score would have increased to 86.68 (as 
compared to WTP's score of 88.31), which, it maintains, would have put 
it in line for award given its higher offered rebate.

4. Additionally, we note that the record includes three other 
reference questionnaires, not cited by the protester, which include 
mixed responses, both positive and negative.

5. Examples of negative comments on the surveys include "[t]elephone 
calls were not returned by travel agency," "[t]he people are rude on 
the phone, act like they don't want to help you," "[s]eat assignment 
requests were ignored," "[t]ravel agency too busy to handle large 
travel demands," "[o]verall, travel plans were found to be ineffective 
in meeting trip requirements due to departure time immediately after 
work with late night arrival at final destination," "[p]oor choice of 
airports . . . which resulted in unnecessary travel time," and "Omega 
seems to only book what is contract [i.e., contract carrier] and never 
mentions any other carriers' availability [even if more suitable]."

6. For example, she states that during a planning meeting for the 
procurement, where the views and opinions on the requirements for the 
procurement were sought from PTO "frequent-flyer" executives and 
travel coordinators, she "became aware of the level of dissatisfaction 
with the incumbent contractor" and that PTO was seeking (1) "a 
contractor who emphasized customer service, i.e., a vendor which was 
pro-active in providing varied information on alternative travel 
arrangements rather than a vendor which had to be provided information 
by the traveler itself," and (2) "a travel services vendor with 
experience in international travel in an effort to alleviate undue 
hardship to the PTO international traveler."

7. Omega requests a hearing on this issue to ascertain the veracity of 
the statements in the declarations.  However, the determination to 
hold a hearing is solely within the discretion of our Office, 4 C.F.R.  sec.  
21.7(a) (1996), and we generally will not hold a hearing merely to 
permit a protester to orally reiterate its protest allegations or 
otherwise embark on a fishing expedition for additional grounds of 
protest.  See Border Maintenance Serv., Inc.--Recon., 72 Comp. Gen. 
265 (1993), 93-1 CPD  para.  473.  Since there is no evidence to suggest 
that the declarations submitted by PTO were fabricated or otherwise 
are questionable, we think a hearing would be of little value in this 
case.