TITLE:  Omega World Travel, Inc., B-283218, October 22, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283218
DATE:  October 22, 1999
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: Omega World Travel, Inc.

File: B-283218

Date: October 22, 1999

Barry Roberts, Esq., and Brian J. Hundertmark, Esq., Roberts & Hundertmark,
for the protester.

James H. Roberts, III, Esq., Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, for Sato Travel, an
intervenor.

John E. Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Source selection official reasonably determined that proposal rated
"blue/excellent" by four evaluators and "green/acceptable" by one evaluator
should be rated "blue/excellent" overall for that evaluation factor; the
overriding concern in the evaluation process is that the final score
assigned accurately reflect the actual merits of the proposals, not that it
be mechanically traceable back to the subjective scores initially given by
the individual evaluators.

2. Where request for proposals provided for award without discussions,
agency's awareness of possible mistake in protester's proposal pricing did
not give rise to an obligation to conduct discussions to permit correction
of mistake where the agency had received a technically equal, lower-priced
proposal, and thus discussions were not otherwise necessary.

DECISION

Omega World Travel, Inc. protests the Department of the Air Force's award of
a contract for commercial travel services to Sato Travel under request for
proposals (RFP) No. F62321-99-R0035. Omega alleges that there were
improprieties in the agency's evaluation of the proposals.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on April 9, 1999, contemplated the award of a 1-year
contract with four 1-year options for travel services to be provided at
Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. The RFP provided, in section M, that the
award would be made on the basis of the best value to the government, and
that proposals would be evaluated under the following three factors:
understanding of the requirement, past performance, and discount fee. The
discount fee was the most important factor in that the RFP provided for it
to be weighted as approximately equal to the two other factors, combined.

Offerors were required to insert their discount fees in the solicitation
schedule provided in section B of the RFP. The schedule called for the entry
of air travel discount amounts for official travel, RFP sect. B, at 4-5, and
leisure travel, RFP sect. B, at 6-7, and instructed offerors to submit discount
fee amounts for the base year and each option year for each of these
categories. [1] The schedule provided the following instruction, in relevant
part, for both official and leisure travel:

The discount on airfares provided by the contractor is to be a percentage of
the commissions paid to the contractor by suppliers of air transportation,
based on total air official travel purchases.

RFP sect. B, at 4, 6.

The RFP stated in section M that the government intended to award the
contract without discussions, citing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
sect. 15.306, and advised offerors to submit initial proposals that were fully
and clearly acceptable without additional information or explanation. RFP
sect. M-2, at 52.

Sato submitted a number of questions to the agency by letter dated April 21.
In one of those questions, Sato pointed out that item 2.2.8 of the RFP (at
page 115) defines the "discount fee" for leisure travel as an "amount paid .
. . [to the Air Force] stated as a percentage of total gross sales," and
that both this definition and the definition provided under "Specific
Tasks," RFP sect. C-5 (at page 126), refer to gross sales as the basis for the
discount percentage and thus differ from the schedule in section B (as
quoted above), which called for the leisure travel discount to be submitted
as a "percentage of the commissions paid to the contractor." Agency Report,
Tab 20, Sato's Questions for Clarification, at 1. The contracting officer
responded, in a written clarification that was distributed to Omega and
Sato, that "[t]he discount for leisure tickets is the percentage of the
total gross sales. The up front reduction of the base fare should not be
considered the discount." Agency Report, Tab 18, Request for Clarification
Responses, at 1. Thus, as clarified, the RFP treated official and leisure
travel differently, with offerors asked to express their official travel
discounts as a percentage of the commission paid by the carrier and their
leisure travel discounts as a percentage of gross sales revenue.

Sato and Omega submitted offers by the May 3 closing date for receipt of
proposals. A five-person source selection evaluation team (SSET), with the
contracting officer acting as its chief and evaluation facilitator,
evaluated each of the proposals. The evaluators scored the proposals under a
color-coded rating system, assigning a rating of blue/exceptional,
green/acceptable, yellow/marginal, or red/unacceptable under each evaluation
factor. The SSET chief prepared a proposal analysis report, based on the
individual evaluators' ratings and evaluation narratives. The source
selection authority reviewed this report to perform a comparative assessment
of the proposals, culminating in his source selection decision.

Under the factor of understanding of the requirement, Omega's proposal
received a blue/exceptional rating from each evaluator, while Sato's
received four blue/exceptional ratings and one green/acceptable rating. Both
proposals were given an overall rating of blue/exceptional for this factor.
Under past performance, both offerors were rated as presenting a low risk.
Agency Report, Tab 12, Proposal Analysis Report, at 2. Omega proposed
discounts of [deleted] percent for official travel and [deleted] percent for
leisure travel, while Sato proposed discounts of [deleted] percent for
official travel and [deleted] percent for leisure travel. The contracting
officer (acting as the SSET chief) concluded that Sato's proposal offered
the best value to the government, based on its excellent technical rating
and its [deleted] discount fee. [2] Id. at 3. The source selection authority
agreed that the two proposals were equal in technical merit, therefore price
should be the discriminating factor, and that Sato should receive the
contract award. Agency Report, Tab 10, Source Selection Decision, at 2.
Award was made on July 1, and notification to the two offerors followed on
July 7. Omega requested and received a written debriefing, and this protest
followed.

Omega protests that Sato's proposal should not have received the highest
possible rating of blue/exceptional for the understanding of the requirement
evaluation factor because it did not receive that rating from every
individual evaluator; and that the [deleted] difference in the discount fees
that Omega and Sato offered for official travel should have alerted the
contracting officer to the possibility of a mistake in Omega's offer,
thereby obligating the contracting officer to seek clarification from Omega.
[3]

With respect to the technical evaluation of Sato's proposal, Omega argues
that because one of the five evaluators rated Sato's proposal
green/acceptable for technical understanding, while all five evaluators
rated Omega's proposal blue/exceptional for this factor, the contracting
officer could not reasonably assign both proposals the same overall rating
of blue in this area. Omega characterizes this as "ignor[ing] and
effectively throw[ing] out the rating of one evaluator simply because [the
contracting officer] likes one of the bidders," and "arbitrarily
equaliz[ing] two unequal scores." Protester's Comments at 2.

The record supports the reasonableness of the contracting officer's
evaluation assessment. Contrary to the protester's assertions, a finding of
technical equality need not be based on strict equality in terms of each
evaluator's rating for each factor, or even point scores. N W Ayer Inc.,
B-248654, Sept. 3, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 154 at 4. The significance of a given
point spread or difference in rating depends upon all the facts and
circumstances surrounding a given procurement; the scores themselves are not
controlling, reflecting as they do the disparate subjective judgments of
evaluators, but are useful as guides to intelligent decisionmaking. Earle
Palmer Brown Cos., Inc., B-243544, B-243544.2, Aug. 7, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 134
at 10. Even if the contracting officer had assigned Sato's proposal a "blue
minus" rating and had assigned Omega's proposal a "perfect blue" for this
factor, as the protester would require, Protester's Comments at 2, the
contracting officer would still have retained the discretion to determine
whether these ratings actually represent any significant difference between
the two proposals. See M. Rosenblatt & Sons, B-230026, B-230026.3, Apr. 26,
1988, 88-1 CPD para. 409 at 3-4. The overriding concern in the evaluation
process is that the final score assigned accurately reflect the actual
merits of the proposals, not that it be mechanically traceable back to the
scores initially given by the individual evaluators. Dragon Servs., Inc.,
B-255354, Feb. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 151 at 11. Here, the record reflects
that each of the evaluators identified strengths in Sato's proposal in this
area, and that the following was listed on the Proposal Evaluation Report
summary as a weakness:

Only possible weakness identified was the number of [deleted], contractor
may want to increase [deleted]. However, the contractor may have [deleted]
not being used by the current contractor or other [deleted] ideas that allow
for a [deleted].

Agency Report, Tab 12, Proposal Analysis Report, attach., PAR Evaluation
Summary Matrix, SATO Travel, at 1.

The record simply does not support the protester's assertion that "the
contracting officer determined that the lack of [deleted] is a significant
weakness in Sato Travel's proposal . . . ." Protest at 2. The concern was
not shared by four of the five evaluators, and was noted in the proposal
analysis report only as a "possible weakness." Agency Report, Tab 12,
Proposal Analysis Report, attach., PAR Evaluation Summary Matrix, SATO
Travel, at 1. In these circumstances, where the SSET listed a number of
strengths under this evaluation factor, and only one evaluator gave the
proposal a green rating for this one factor, we have no basis to find the
overall blue rating for Sato's proposal unreasonable; on the contrary, we
think the blue rating was reasonably justified by the significant strengths
that the evaluators noted in Sato's quality control plans, such as
[deleted], and Sato's proposed [deleted], which was considered exceptional.
Contracting Officer's Statement at 3.

Regarding the disparity between the two offerors' levels of discount fees
for official travel, we find without merit Omega's premise that the
contracting officer was required to seek clarification because he should
have recognized the possibility that Omega's offer was based on a mistake.
Omega states that its proposed [deleted] percent discount is expressed as a
percentage of gross sales, Protester's Comments at 2, while Sato's [deleted]
percent discount represents a percentage of commission revenue. Except for
leisure travel (where the RFP clarification stated discounts were to be
based on gross sales), the RFP clearly states that the discount "is to be a
percentage of the commissions paid to the contractor." RFP sect. B, at 4.
Omega's failure to comply with the explicit instructions for submitting its
official travel discount fee percentage falls short of its responsibility as
an offeror to submit an adequately written and complete proposal. Cubic
Field Servs., Inc., B-252526, June 2, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 419 at 5.

Where, as here, a mistake in an offer other than the awardee's offer is
first alleged after award, the general rule is that the unsuccessful offeror
must bear the consequences of its mistake unless the contracting officer was
on actual or constructive notice of an error before award. PAE GmbH Planning
and Constr., B-233823, Mar. 31, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 336 at 3. Omega asserts
that the magnitude of the difference in the two offerors' discount fees
should have provided constructive notice of the mistake, and that the
contracting officer should have sought clarification from Omega. In this
connection, the agency report acknowledges that "[a]fter comparison, the
evaluators did note the apparent spread of the proposed discount fees."
Contracting Officer's Statement at 4. However, Omega's alleged improper
pricing of its proposal does not present the type of mistake which could be
corrected through clarifications, nor was the agency required to conduct
discussions in order to correct the mistake. The alleged error is not a
minor irregularity or apparent clerical mistake, such that correction could
be made by asking Omega to clarify this aspect of its proposal, without
conducting discussions. See Mine Safety Appliances Co., B-242379.5, Aug. 6,
1992, 92-2 CPD para. 76 at 5-6. As provided by FAR sect. 15.306(a), "clarifications"
are limited exchanges between the government and offerors that may occur
when award without discussions is contemplated. Such communications with
offerors are not to be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material
omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal,
or otherwise revise the proposal. Cf. FAR sect. 15.306(b)(2). Further,
correction without discussions is not appropriate here because the discount
that Omega allegedly intended cannot be clearly and convincingly ascertained
from the RFP and the proposal itself. See Matrix Int'l Logistics, Inc.,
B-272388.2, Dec. 9, 1996, 97-2 CPD para. 89 at 13. Although Omega states that
the discount percentage it offered would actually provide a higher discount
than Sato's offer, Protester's Comments at 2, Omega never provides any
calculations or other basis to verify this assertion, and nothing in the
record provides any evidence of a direct relationship between the discount
Omega proposed in its offer and the discount that it allegedly intended.
Thus, any correction of the mistake would require the agency to conduct
discussions with both offerors, and here the RFP provided that award would
be made without discussions. There generally is no obligation that a
contracting agency conduct discussions where the RFP specifically instructs
offerors of the agency's intent to award a contract on the basis of initial
proposals. Robotic Sys. Tech., B-278195.2, Jan. 7, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 20 at
11; FAR sect. 15.306(a)(3). The contracting officer's discretion in deciding not
to hold discussions is quite broad. Our Office will review the exercise of
such discretion only to ensure that it was reasonably based on the
particular circumstances of the procurement. Robotic Sys. Tech., supra.

We find no circumstances here that call into question the agency's decision
not to engage in discussions. Contrary to the protester's assertions, the
fact that its proposal may have contained a mistake does not give rise to an
obligation on the agency's part to hold discussions where discussions are
not otherwise necessary. Since the agency had properly determined both that
Sato had submitted an initial proposal that was technically acceptable and
that its offered low price was fair and reasonable, there is no basis for us
to object to the Air Force's determination to make award without
discussions. Cornet, Inc.; Datacomm Management Servs., Inc., B-270330,
B-270330.2, Feb. 28, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 189 at 7.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. "Official travel" is defined in section C-2 of the RFP as travel
authorized in connection with government business and paid for from
appropriated funds, while "leisure travel" is defined as leave, furlough,
vacation and other unofficial travel, which is paid for from personal funds
by the traveler. RFP sect. C-2, at 63.

2. Based on the nature of the travel involved, it is to be expected that the
major portion of the dollar volume of services provided under the contract
will fall under the provision of official, rather than leisure, travel
services. The RFP workload estimates list $8.1M for official air travel,
RFP, Technical exh. 1.2a, at 85, and $4M for leisure services, RFP,
Technical exh. 2.2, at 135.

3. Although Omega also initially protested that the contracting officer's
determination of best value based on the discount fee constituted plain
error, Protest at 3, it did not rebut the agency's position in its comments.
We therefore consider Omega to have abandoned this basis of protest. Akal
Sec., Inc., B-261996, Nov. 16, 1995, 96-1 CPD para. 33 at 5 n.5.