BNUMBER:  B-276837.3 
DATE:  June 9, 1998
TITLE: Omega World Travel, Inc., B-276837.3, June 9, 1998
**********************************************************************

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.
Matter of: Omega World Travel, Inc.

File:     B-276837.3

Date:June 9, 1998

Barry Roberts, Esq., and Brian J. Hundertmark, Esq., Roberts & 
Hundertmark, for the protester.
Janet L. Harney, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and John M. Melody, 
Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest that in evaluating proposals procuring agency unreasonably 
inflated score of awardee's proposal is denied where protester does 
not explain why it believes scoring was improper, and nothing on face 
of evaluation appears unreasonable.

2.  In performing tradeoff between technical quality and level of 
rebates, agency properly credited awardee's proposal for 
transportation rebate on both technical and rebate sides, since 
solicitation provided for evaluation of discounted or free ground 
transportation under technical evaluation, and rebate was 
unconditional and its value quantifiable.

DECISION

Omega World Travel, Inc. protests the award of a contract to American 
Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. 3FBG-W-CM-N-5222, issued by the General Services 
Administration (GSA) for travel management center services for the 
Department of State, United States Information Agency, and United 
States Agency for International Development.  Omega asserts that GSA 
misevaluated proposals and did not perform an adequate tradeoff 
between technical quality and the level of rebates.[1]

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued on February 10, 1998, set out minimum service 
requirements in sections C and H, as well as a mandatory minimum 
rebate (based on domestic air ticket sales) that offerors were 
required to provide to the government.  Proposals that met the minimum 
requirements were evaluated against the following technical criteria:  
Section C, Enhanced Services (with subfactors for project management, 
quality control plan, personnel, and implementation plan); section H, 
Enhanced Services (discounted or free airport parking and discounted 
or free ground transportation); and Past Performance.  Solicitation  sec.  
M.  Proposals were rated under each subfactor on a numerical scale.  
Technical Evaluation Plan.  Proposals also were evaluated for any 
rebate offered the government in addition to the mandatory rebate.  
Solicitation  sec.  M.4.  Technical quality was more important than 
additional rebates, and award was to be based on the best value to the 
government.  Solicitation  sec.  M.2.

Omega's and American Express's proposals were among those included in 
the competitive range.  After the final technical evaluation, American 
Express's proposal was ranked [DELETED] in technical merit, with a 
score of 293.68, while Omega's was ranked [DELETED], with 245.67 
points.  Source Selection Decision at 2.  Omega offered the government 
the highest additional rebate ($7,712,712.30) and American Express the 
second highest ($5,910,337.08), but American Express also proposed a 
[DELETED], which could be applied toward ground transportation.  With 
this proposed [DELETED], more than offsetting the difference in the 
additional rebate offered by Omega.  GSA performed a tradeoff between 
technical quality and the level of rebates, including consideration of 
the [DELETED], and made award to American Express after it determined 
that its offer was most advantageous to the government.  Source 
Selection Decision.  This protest followed.

Omega argues that GSA improperly evaluated American Express's proposal 
in several respects. 

The evaluation of proposals is primarily a matter within the 
discretion of the contracting agency since it is responsible for 
defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  In 
reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our Office 
will not question the evaluation unless it is unreasonable or 
inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria.  The protester bears 
the burden of proving that the evaluation is unreasonable.  Ogden 
Support Servs., Inc., B-270354.2, Oct. 29, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  135 at 3.  
We have reviewed all of Omega's arguments and find them to be without 
merit.  We discuss the principal arguments below.

ADDITIONAL HARDWARE/SOFTWARE

The solicitation provided under the project management subfactor of 
section C, Enhanced Services that GSA would evaluate offerors' ability 
to provide additional hardware and software capability to increase 
automated reservation system services beyond the minimum required.  
Solicitation  sec.  M.3.1(1)(a).  American Express offered [DELETED].  
Contracting Officer's Statement at 2; Source Selection Decision at 3.  
GSA found that the offered enhancements would benefit the government 
by facilitating access to travel arrangements and ensuring quality 
service, and credited American Express's proposal [DELETED] points for 
the enhancements.  Omega asserts that, in fact, these enhancements 
offer little more than Omega's proposal, and concludes that GSA 
unreasonably inflated American Express's score based on these 
enhancements.  

While Omega asserts that these enhancements offered by American 
Express should not have been assigned more than 1 point in the 
evaluation, it does not deny that the enhancements will in fact 
benefit the government, and offers nothing more than its opinion that, 
contrary to the agency's judgment, the enhancements will provide only 
a marginal benefit compared to Omega's proposal.  As GSA notes, the 
scoring of proposals is a matter primarily within the discretion of 
the contracting agency; technical evaluators have considerable 
latitude in assigning ratings which reflect their subjective judgments 
of a proposal's relative merits.  MiTech, Inc., B-275078, Jan. 23, 
1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  208.  Given that the [DELETED] undisputedly 
constitute additional computer hardware and software that would 
improve the automated reservation services, and that Omega has 
provided no specific argument or evidence showing that the scoring was 
arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable, there is no basis for questioning 
American Express's rating under this subfactor.

Similarly, Omega complains that American Express's proposal 
unreasonably was scored 40 percent higher than Omega's for its quality 
control plan; Omega asserts that there was no proper basis for such a 
large difference, given that both Omega and American Express have 
provided superior quality control services to their government 
accounts in the past and both offers are substantially similar.  The 
record shows, however, that American Express offered more enhancements 
under this subfactor than Omega, that its enhancements were deemed of 
greater benefit to the government than Omega's, and that American 
Express's higher score was based on these enhancements.  For example, 
American Express offered to establish a [DELETED].  The agency 
considered this to be a particularly valuable enhancement since it 
would provide around-the-clock travel assistance from travel 
counselors familiar with the customer agency's travel requirements.  
Omega's proposal also was credited for offered enhancements in this 
area--for example, [DELETED]--but Omega's enhancements were neither as 
numerous, nor deemed as providing as great a benefit.  Agency's 
Response to Protester's Comments, April 21, 1998, at       8-9.  This 
scoring clearly was consistent with the evaluation scheme, and there 
is no evidence supporting Omega's mere assertion that American 
Express's enhancements were assigned too many points.  

We conclude that Omega has done no more than express its disagreement 
with the evaluation in this and other areas; such disagreement with an 
evaluation is insufficient to demonstrate that the evaluation is 
unreasonable.  Ogden Support Servs., Inc., supra, at 3.  

GROUND TRANSPORTATION [DELETED]

Omega protests that American Express's proposal improperly was 
accorded credit for its offered ground transportation [DELETED] both 
under the technical evaluation--where it received the maximum 
[DELETED] points for this enhancement--and as a cost (rebate) 
advantage in the tradeoff analysis.  Omega maintains that, in 
contrast, the agency considered Omega's offered enhancements only in 
the technical evaluation.  

An agency properly may take a feature of a proposal into account under 
more than one evaluation area where the areas are designed to assess 
different aspects of the proposal feature.  See Wilcox Elec., Inc., 
B-270097, Jan. 11, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  82 at 5-6.  This is what happened 
here.

GSA considered American Express's ground transportation [DELETED] 
offer under solicitation section M.3.2(2), which states that the 
government will consider an offer to provide discounted or free 
transportation to servicing airports.  The record shows that there 
were distinct technical advantages to the [DELETED] for the agencies.  
For example, this methodology was available and [DELETED].  GSA also 
considered the ground transportation [DELETED] to be a cost advantage 
in its tradeoff deliberations based on the pure monetary benefit to 
the government--it was [DELETED] and effectively and simply 
constituted another additional [DELETED].  Source Selection Document 
at 6.  GSA could accurately determine the value of this enhancement 
from the [DELETED] under the contract.  Since the [DELETED] provided 
the government with definite technical and cost advantages, it was 
proper to consider the [DELETED] favorably in both areas.

While Omega is correct that GSA did not consider the monetary value of 
any of the other offered enhancements, this was solely because none of 
those other enhancements could be valued with any accuracy.  Thus, for 
example, while Omega offered a ground transportation discount of 
between [DELETED], the agency could not estimate how many travelers 
would take the [DELETED], and therefore could not assess the monetary 
value of this benefit.  Similarly, both American Express and Omega 
offered discounted parking, with the amount of the discount dependent 
on the airport used.  GSA could not value this discount for either 
offeror because there was no way to estimate how many travelers would 
use it (i.e., how many would park at the airport), and which airports 
would be used.  We conclude that the agency properly considered 
unquantifiable proposed enhancements only in the technical evaluation.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Omega raised other issues in its protest relating to discussions 
and the mandatory rebate.  The agency responded to these arguments in 
its report, and the protester simply stated in its comments on the 
report that "Omega hereby incorporates the arguments raised in its 
previous submissions. . . ."  Since Omega has not substantively 
rebutted the agency's position on these issues, we view them as 
abandoned and will not consider them.  See LSS Leasing Corp., 
B-259551, Apr. 3, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  179 at 5 n.6.