TITLE: B-297986.2, Boersma Travel Services, November 17, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297986.2
DATE: November 17, 2006
******************************************************
B-297986.2, Boersma Travel Services, November 17, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Boersma Travel Services

   File: B-297986.2

   Date: November 17, 2006

   James E. Kimble for the protester.

   Christopher S. Tiroff, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the
   agency.

   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where
   record shows that evaluation, and resulting conclusion that awardee's
   proposal represented "best value," were reasonable; although agency
   erroneously downgraded protester's proposal in two areas, these errors
   were not prejudicial, since record shows they were not sufficiently
   significant to affect award decision.

   DECISION

   Boersma Travel Services (BTS) protests the award of a contract to Duluth
   Travel, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-200-06-RP-0001,
   issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for commercial travel
   services. BTS challenges the evaluation.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued as a service-disabled-veteran-owned small business
   (SDVOSB) set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price,
   indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a 6-month base
   period with 3 option years. This travel management center (TMC) contract,
   which will provide nationwide travel services for VA employees and
   veterans, was intended to consolidate VA's current TMC requirements, which
   were being met under the General Services Administration's (GSA) eTravel
   (eTS) initiative and other contracts. The RFP identified three alternative
   scenarios for contract performance, with the chosen alternative to be
   identified at the time of contract award. Alternative A involved TMC
   services without use of the current eTS. Alternative B involved the TMC
   doing all VA fulfillment and partial booking, with VA utilizing the
   current eTS for booking. Alternative C involved use of the selected firm's
   electronic booking system until eTS was fully implemented. Each scenario
   included its own estimated volumes.[1]

   Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of four factors, listed in
   descending order of importance--technical/management, price, past
   performance, and use of SDVOSBs. The technical/management factor included
   four equally weighted subfactors--technical approach, ability to provide
   alternative A, ability to provide alternative B, and interface with the
   eTS vendor. Price was to be evaluated for completeness, realism, and
   reasonableness based on the totals for each individual alternative and the
   total for all alternatives. Past performance was to be evaluated as a
   measure of the government's confidence in an offeror's ability to
   successfully perform the contract, and the SDVOSB factor was evaluated on
   the basis of the amount of work to be performed by SDVOSBs. The non-price
   factors were significantly more important than price. Award was to be made
   on a "best value" basis.

   Three offerors, including BTS and Duluth, submitted proposals, which were
   evaluated by a technical evaluation team.[2] In addition, each offeror
   made an on-site oral presentation. The period of performance was adjusted,
   and offerors were given the opportunity to provide revised pricing. The
   final consensus evaluation ratings for BTS and Duluth (the only proposals
   relevant here) were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                |        BTS        |      Duluth       |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Technical/Management            |      Yellow       |       Green       |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Technical Approach              |       Green       |       Green       |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Alternative A                   |      Yellow       |       Green       |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Alternative B                   |      Yellow       |       Green       |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Interface                       |      Yellow       |       Green       |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Past Performance                |     Moderate      |        Low        |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Use of SDVOSBs                  |       Green       |       Green       |
   |--------------------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
   |Evaluated Price[3]              |    $2,669,798     |    $2,989,143     |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   In making his award determination, the contracting officer concluded that
   the technical superiority of Duluth's proposal made it the best value
   despite its higher price. After receiving a debriefing, BTS filed this
   protest. BTS asserts that the agency unreasonably downgraded its proposal
   in several areas.

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
   confined to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and
   consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
   regulations. United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 75 at 10-11. The award here is supported by the record. [4]

   MULTIPLE SUBCONTRACTORS

   Under the alternative A and B subfactors, the evaluators found a weakness
   in BTS's proposal to use multiple subcontractors to accomplish the work;
   the evaluators were concerned that BTS would use different subcontractors,
   each with its own toll-free telephone number, to service VA's various
   field offices on a regional basis. This was viewed as problematic because,
   in the past, having multiple TMCs handle different VA regions had resulted
   in significant administrative expense and customer dissatisfaction.
   Supplemental Agency Report at 6. VA concluded that this approach was a
   major weakness because it could result in confusion as to which entity to
   call, varying levels of service depending upon the ability of the
   different subcontractors to handle the workload, and difficulty in
   tracking down issues and troubleshooting problems.

   BTS asserts that the problems identified by the agency would not occur
   under BTS's approach since, unlike VA's problematic contracts, under which
   the multiple TMCs were in competition with one another, its subcontractors
   would all work for BTS. While each subcontractor would have a different
   contact number, BTS proposed to provide a single toll-free number, at
   BTS's headquarters, to be used by all VA employees; BTS's telephone system
   then would redirect calls to the subcontractors as appropriate. BTS
   further notes that bridging software it proposed to use would allow all
   BTS and subcontractor offices to have access to VA travel information,
   regardless of where the travel was booked, making troubleshooting a simple
   matter.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. Whether or not the centralized
   approach as described above was intended by BTS, this was not clear from
   its proposal. In this regard, while one proposal page refers to a single
   toll-fee number and another refers to BTS's intent to "strategically
   direct" other VA offices to its subcontractors, elsewhere the proposal
   refers to "call centers" and its subcontractors' office locations. BTS
   Proposal at 4, 9. Further, one of BTS's oral presentation slides,
   depicting a map of the U.S., identifies different call centers and, at the
   presentation, BTS provided an example that all Georgia VA offices would be
   serviced by BTS's Georgia subcontractor, which had a separate toll-free
   contact number. BTS Slide No. 8; Supplemental Agency Report at 5. Given
   these references, and the absence of a clear explanation of the manner in
   which BTS's system would operate, we think the agency reasonably could be
   concerned that BTS's proposed approach was decentralized, at least to some
   degree and in some respects, and could lead to the same problems
   experienced in the past. We conclude that the agency reasonably assessed
   this weakness under the alternative A and B subfactors.

   AUTO-TICKETING AND QUALITY CONTROL SOFTWARE

   BTS's proposal stated that it intended to purchase and implement
   auto-ticketing and quality control software during the first year of
   performance and that, because this software would enable the firm to
   process the majority of self-service transactions "touch-less," it was
   expected to save time and money, reduce errors, increase accuracy, and
   improve customer service. BTS Proposal at 5, 16. BTS's price assumptions
   also were based on use of these software programs. The evaluators assessed
   a weakness under each subfactor based on their concerns relating to BTS's
   proposal to acquire and use this software because, in their view, not
   having the software at the time of contract award raised the possibility
   that BTS would be unable to obtain it, become trained on it, and then
   train VA personnel in a timely manner. In addition, the agency was
   concerned that, until the software was implemented, VA's services would be
   at risk for increased costs, errors, and inaccuracies.

   BTS asserts that the evaluation conclusions are unreasonable because the
   RFP did not require the software for performance of the contract, and BTS
   proposed sufficient personnel to handle performance without it.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. Since BTS proposed use of the
   software and relied on its implementation for improved and lower-cost
   performance, it was reasonable for the evaluators to consider the risks
   involved in use of the software. Whether or not BTS proposed sufficient
   personnel to operate without the software, the fact remains that its
   proposal and price assumptions were based on use of the software. We
   conclude that the evaluators reasonably assigned the proposal a weakness
   under each subfactor.

   PAST PERFORMANCE

   The RFP required offerors to submit past performance information,
   including the dollar value of each referenced contract. BTS's past
   performance references indicated that it had provided travel
   services--including air, rental car, and hotel reservations--under seven
   contracts. In order to better assess the offerors' capability to handle
   VA's large volume of transactions, the evaluators wanted to consider the
   size of offerors' past contracts on the basis of transactions. Because
   BTS's contract values did not indicate the number of ticket transactions,
   the evaluators asked BTS at the oral presentation how to determine those
   figures. BTS advised the agency that dividing the contract volume by $400
   would result in the ticket volume figures. However, because the dollar
   volumes in the contract ostensibly included all travel services, and not
   just ticketing, the evaluators were unsure of the accuracy of this
   calculation, despite repeated inquiries at the oral presentation.

   BTS asserts that it is the accepted commercial standard to consider
   contract size in terms of ticket sales alone, and that it thus should have
   been clear that its listed contract volumes included only those
   transactions, which, in response to VA's inquiries, it accurately valued
   at $400 each. BTS concludes that its past performance proposal provided
   sufficient information to warrant a more favorable evaluation than the
   moderate risk rating it received.

   The evaluation in this area was reasonable. Whether or not ticket sales
   volume is the accepted commercial standard for measuring contract volume,
   BTS's proposal did not make clear that its prior contract values were
   stated in terms of ticket volume alone, and it thus was reasonable for the
   agency to question BTS in this regard. Thus, while BTS believes the
   contract values were clear on their face, as a result of BTS's ultimate
   failure to unequivocally establish the nature of those contract values,
   the evaluators had no means of accurately determining the magnitude of
   work under BTS's prior contracts for purposes of comparing them to the
   current requirement. Moreover, even accepting BTS's claim that the
   contract values represented ticket volume alone, and that dividing those
   amounts by $400 yields the number of ticket transactions, the agency
   observes that the anticipated volume of transactions under the current
   requirement is dramatically greater than the work under other BTS
   contracts, which leads to a legitimate concern as to BTS's capacity. For
   example, VA's anticipated 113,610 total annual transactions are more than
   three times the size of BTS's largest prior contract. Thus, apart from
   whether BTS adequately responded to the agency's concerns, in view of the
   significantly higher volumes under the contract here as compared to BTS's
   prior contracts, it was reasonable to rate BTS's proposal as moderate risk
   under the past performance factor.

   PRICE EVALUATION

   BTS asserts that the agency failed to consider the proposals' bottom line
   prices, failed to rate the prices, and unreasonably found BTS's proposed
   price inadequate. These arguments are without merit. First, the record
   reflects that the agency did in fact evaluate both offerors' bottom line
   prices. Proposal Analysis Report at 10-11. Second, the RFP provided for
   evaluation on the basis of completeness, realism, and reasonableness, and
   the agency found that BTS's pricing satisfied all of these attributes;
   there was no rating scheme for proposed price. Finally, while the
   evaluators had limited concerns that the firm's pricing appeared low, they
   ultimately concluded that its pricing showed a clear understanding of the
   requirements.[5]

   EVALUATION ERRORS

   The agency concedes that it incorrectly assessed BTS's proposal a weakness
   under the interface subfactor--concerning BTS's capability to provide a
   working eTS interface--and that BTS's proposal therefore should have been
   rated green under that subfactor. In addition, based on our review, a
   weakness regarding BTS's capability to handle VA's volume of work under
   alternatives A and B is unsupported by the record. Specifically, the
   protester has pointed to aspects of its proposal that appear to adequately
   address this area, and its oral presentation included staffing charts that
   the agency apparently did not consider. However, since BTS's
   yellow/marginal ratings under the alternative A and B subfactors were
   based on three weaknesses each, there is no basis on this record to
   believe that eliminating one weakness under each would affect the two
   yellow/marginal subfactor ratings and BTS's overall yellow/marginal rating
   under the technical factor. Thus, we conclude that the agency's errors in
   these areas do not appear significant, and that BTS was not prejudiced by
   them. Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester
   demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the
   agency's actions, that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for
   the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving
   the award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at
   3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir.
   1996).

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] For example, the estimated volume of transactions under the scenario
   selected for award--alternative B--exceeded 113,000 in the first option
   year.

   [2] The technical/management and SDVOSB factors were rated on a color
   coded/adjectival basis--blue/exceptional, green/acceptable,
   yellow/marginal, and red/unacceptable. Past performance was rated as high,
   moderate, or low risk.

   [3] These figures represent the contract value--in terms of total
   transaction fees--under alternative B.

   [4] BTS challenges the agency's award on numerous bases. We have
   considered all of its arguments and find that they have no merit or did
   not prejudice the protester. This decision addresses BTS's most
   significant arguments.

   [5] We note that, to the extent BTS asserts that it should have received
   the award based on its lower price, its argument is without merit. Under
   the terms of the RFP, non-price factors were significantly more important
   than price. In view of BTS's yellow technical rating and moderate past
   performance risk rating, the contracting officer reasonably could conclude
   that Duluth's technical superiority outweighed its higher price.