TITLE:  Manassas Travel, Inc., B-294867.3, May 3, 2005
BNUMBER:  B-294867.3
DATE:  May 3, 2005
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of: Manassas Travel, Inc.

   File: B-294867.3

   Date: May 3, 2005

   Barry Roberts, Esq., for the protester.

   John N. Maher, Esq., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, for Alexander Travel
Ltd., an intervenor.

   Maj. Frank A. March, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably made award based upon higher-priced proposal with an
inferior performance risk rating because of the higher rating of the
awardee's proposal, and the specific strengths supporting that rating,
under most heavily-weighted technical factor; during hearing GAO
considered agency's credible explanation of the strengths, which was
consistent with contemporaneous record.

   DECISION

   Manassas Travel, Inc. protests the Department of the Army's award of a
contract to Alexander Travel Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
W91QUZ-04-R-0007, for official travel management and related additional
services.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued February 13, 2004, contemplated the award of six
fixed-price contracts, each for a base period of 2 years, with three
1-year options, to provide official travel management and related
additional services on a point-of-sale basis for recruits, from Military
Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) locations in six travel areas (101
through 105) to the recruits' initial post, camp, or installation to
undergo recruit training.  A MEPS is a location where military recruits
from all of the military branches report for their initial medical
examination, and administration of the oath.  This protest concerns the
award of the contract for Travel Area 103 to Alexander Travel, Inc. [1] 

   Proposals were initially subject to an initial "go/no go" evaluation for
the passenger name record (PNR) data validation with the Defense Travel
System.  The determination of the most advantageous proposal for each
travel area was to be based on three evaluation factors:  technical,
performance risk, and price.  The technical factor was more important than
the price factor, the price factor was more important than the performance
risk factor, and the technical and performance risk factors, when
combined, were significantly more important than the price factor.  Award
was to be made on a "best value" basis.

   The Army received nine proposals for Travel Area 103, including those of
Manassas Travel and Alexander Travel.  All offerors submitting proposals
for Travel Area 103 successfully completed the PNR data validation
process.  Following written discussions, eight final proposal revisions
were received.  Manassas Travel's proposal received a "good" technical
rating and a "very low" performance risk rating, and offered a total
evaluated price of [DELETED].  Alexander Travel's proposal received an
"outstanding" technical rating and a "low" performance risk rating, and
offered a total evaluated price of $1,436,663.94.  Based on Alexander
Travel's proposal's "outstanding" rating under the most important factor,
and the particular strengths that supported this rating, the agency
determined that Alexander Travel's proposal represented the overall best
value to the government, even though its evaluated price was higher than
that of Manassas Travel and its performance risk rating was inferior to
Manassas Travel's "very low" rating.  In the Source Selection Document,
the agency identified the two most significant technical strengths in the
Alexander Travel proposal that led to its "outstanding" technical rating
and the award selection:  a customized on-line MEPS transportation
application and an automated Centrally Billed Account (CBA) reconciliation
product (called ReconPlus).  The agency awarded the contract to Alexander
Travel on January 28, 2005.  On February 4, Manassas Travel filed this
protest.

   Manassas Travel argues that the technical strengths that the agency cited
for Alexander Travel's proposal are illusory because the agency failed to
explain exactly what Alexander Travel would do that is superior to
Manassas Travel's, and that the agency's best value determination was
flawed in that it failed to explain why any advantages in Alexander
Travel's proposal were worth the higher price.

   We review challenges to an agency's evaluation of proposals only to
determine whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the
solicitation's evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
regulations.  PharmChem, Inc., B-291725.3 et al., July 22, 2003, 2003 CPD
P 148 at 3.  A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment is
not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.  Entz
Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD P 70 at 3. 

   We conducted a hearing in this case because contemporaneous evaluation
documentation did not completely explain the nature of the cited strengths
that led to the award selection.  In this regard, the protester argues
that the agency's
cost/technical tradeoff contained only conclusions and was insufficiently
documented.  The protester contends that the agency's attempts to orally
justify the cost/technical tradeoff during the hearing should not be
allowed because "an oral justification following a bid protest months
after the actual evaluation is inherently unreliable and no substitute for
a written rational[e] made contemporaneous with the award."  Protester's
Hearing Comments at 5.  However, post-protest explanations that provide a
detailed rationale for contemporaneous conclusions simply fill in
previously unrecorded details, and will generally be considered in our
review of the rationality of selection decisions, so long as those
explanations are credible and consistent with the contemporaneous record. 
NWT, Inc., PharmChem Labs., Inc., B-280988; B-280988.2, Dec. 17, 1998,
98-2 CPD P158 at 16.  As detailed below, the explanations provided at the
hearing simply provide more details regarding the strengths identified in
the source selection decision, and we have considered these explanations,
which are consistent with the record, in determining that the award
selection was reasonable.

   As explained at the hearing by an adviser to the source selection
authority (SSA), the customized on-line MEPS transportation application
offered by Alexander Travel will automate many of the manual processes
currently in use and give the government a better ability to manage the
names on the blocked seats against the names in the computer system. 
Currently, the government does a projection a month in advance of the
number of travelers for the following month, and these projections are
faxed or e-mailed to the commercial travel office.  With the on-line MEPS
application offered by Alexander Travel, the government will be able to
enter those projections into the database and send them electronically to
the commercial travel office; the commercial travel office can send this
information to the airlines and block the seats; and the airline can then
send the flight information, record locators, and the seat block
information back to the commercial travel office.  Currently, when the
commercial travel office receives this information from the airline, it is
then relayed back to the government by fax or telephone.  With the on-line
MEPS application, the commercial travel office can enter that information
into the database and send it back to the government.  Then, 24 hours
prior to departure, names can be provided to the commercial travel office
to place against the seats that have been blocked by the airlines, and the
commercial travel office can issue airline tickets.  Hearing Transcript
(Tr.) at 16-20.

   The agency also explained that Alexander Travel's on-line MEPS application
is specifically geared towards MEPS travel and will assist the government
in managing the MEPS travel program.  Tr. at 22.  The agency noted that
this is significant because MEPS and temporary duty (TDY) travel have
separate fare structures, in that MEPS travel uses passenger standing
route order program fares and TDY travel primarily uses contracted city
pair fares.  In addition, with MEPS travel there are many last minute
modifications due to personnel changes, resulting in a high probability of
fluctuation with the names prior to ticketing.  Tr. at 8.  As explained by
the source selection authority at the hearing, "there's a greater degree
of difficulty in managing a group of unknown people that are going to
travel on an unknown date to an unknown--well, to a known destination than
there is in the traditional travel services where the travel services get
me from point A to point B."  Tr. at 94.  In contrast, the agency noted
that the Manassas Travel proposal offered more of a low fare search, which
was more appropriate for TDY travel; the agency witness explained that
while a low fare search might be appropriate for TDY travel, it would not
"necessarily work" for MEPS travel because there are already guaranteed
traffic dedicated fares for MEPS personnel. [2]  Tr. at 22

   The agency also identified certain benefits that would accrue to it as a
result of the
on-line MEPS application outlined in Alexander Travel's proposal.  First,
the automated system is a "more accurate and more efficient way" to track
the last minute changes that are inherent in the travel of recruits, in
contrast to the current method, where many processes regarding last minute
changes are performed manually.  Tr. at 78.  Second, it will allow the
agency to use the information in the database to quickly establish
accurate projections of the number of seats that the agency will need in
the future, so that the agency can negotiate better rates; currently, to
obtain better rates, the agency has "to go back through mounds of
paperwork" to establish seat projections.  Tr. at 19.

   The other major strength that the agency identified in Alexander Travel's
proposal was an automated CBA reconciliation product, called ReconPlus. 
At the hearing, the adviser to the SSA explained that this will "allow the
Government to perform [the] reconciliation and dispute process on line,
managing those disputes more efficiently than the manual process we have
today, as well as alleviating [the] prompt payment penalty because of our
ability to manage the dispute process in a more efficient manner."  Tr. at
29.  She further explained that the dispute process leads to "out of
balance" invoices, which leads to problems of delinquency, such that the
government may be liable for prompt payment interest, which may amount to
a "good sum of money."  Tr. at 29-30, 45-46.  Delinquent accounts can also
be suspended, which can have serious implications for MEPS travelers
because these recruits do not have a personal charge card and would
therefore be stranded, with no way to travel from their MEPS recruiting
station to their duty point or to their duty base.  Tr. at 57-58.  In
contrast, Manassas Travel's proposal did not provide for this automated
feature. 

   Based on the foregoing, we find that the agency's evaluation of Alexander
Travel's proposal was reasonable and consistent with the RFP.  Where, as
here, the RFP indicates that technical considerations are more important
than price considerations in determining the best value to the government,
selecting a technically superior, higher-priced proposal is proper where
the agency reasonably concludes that the price premium is justified in
light of the proposal's technical superiority.  The propriety of such a
price/technical tradeoff decision turns not on the difference in the
technical scores or ratings per se, but on whether the selection
official's judgment concerning the significance of the difference was
reasonable and adequately justified in light of the RFP's evaluation
scheme.  Continental RPVs,
B-292768.6, April 5, 2004, 2004 CPD P 103 at 6-7.  As stated above, the
agency in its evaluation identified various strengths in Alexander
Travel's proposal that outweighed Manassas Travel's price advantage and
"very low" performance risk rating, which reasonably justify the award
selection.  Id. at 7; Ready Transp., Inc.,
B-285283.3, B-285283.4, May 8, 2001, 2001 CPD P 90 at 12-13. 

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel          

   ------------------------

   [1] Travel Area 103 consists of the following 10 MEPS locations:  Des
Moines, IA; North Chicago, IL; Chicago, IL; Indianapolis, IN; Minneapolis,
MN; Lansing, MI; Detroit, MI; Fargo, ND; Sioux Falls, SD; and Milwaukee,
WI. 

   [2] We note that Manassas Travel does not refute the agency's technical
evaluation of its own proposal.