B-297986, Knowledge Connections, Inc., May 18, 2006

B-297986 May 18, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Knowledge Connections, Inc. (KCI) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-200-06-RP-0001, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for travel management services. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297986, Knowledge Connections, Inc., May 18, 2006 Decision Matter of: Knowledge Connections, Inc. File: B-297986 Date: May 18, 2006 Marion J. Bonhomme-Knox for the protester. Christopher S. Tiroff, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that request for proposals (RFP) for travel management services that gives offerors the option to use any electronic travel reservation system to interface with the General Services Administration's eTravel System (eTS) improperly favors offerors using a particular electronic travel reservation system developed and owned by the eTS contractor is denied where the RFP does not restrict offerors to that specific system and any alleged competitive advantage results from a firm's prior contracts and not from improper or unfair agency action. DECISION Knowledge Connections, Inc. (KCI) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. VA-200-06-RP-0001, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for travel management services. We deny the protest. On December 1, 2005, the VA issued the solicitation as a total service-disabled-veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside for an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for a single Travel Management Center (TMC) to provide nationwide travel services for VA employees and veterans. The VA explains that currently, it has no centralized travel management operation and it uses multiple contractors to provide travel services, including, for example, World Wide Travel, Omega Travel Agency, and Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the General Services Administration's (GSA) eTravel system (eTS) initiative. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The VA expects that the TMC contractor will eventually provide all travel services for the VA, including self-service online booking of local, domestic, and international travel, as well as non-self-service options. RFP sect. C.1.1. As relevant here, currently, VA personnel may book travel on the eTS. Once a ticket or other reservation is made in the eTS, that booking information must be communicated to one of the VA travel management contractors. The travel management contractor then actually purchases the ticket or other reservation made on the eTS. Under the RFP, at the VA's option, the VA will continue to use the eTS for a period of time. Therefore, the TMC contractor is required to develop all interfaces necessary to send and receive data between the TMC contractor's electronic travel reservation system, called a Global Distribution System (GDS), [1] and the eTS which provides the self-service booking option to VA personnel. The VA has issued a task order to EDS for its eTS. Under this task order, EDS, which uses the Sabre GDS, must –accommodate— the VA travel management contractor selected under this procurement. Contracting Officer Statement at 1. Under the travel management solicitation, a vendor may use any GDS it chooses, provided the vendor's system can communicate with the eTS. The amended due date for receipt of proposals was January 26, 2006. On January 20, KCI filed an agency-level protest challenging the terms of the solicitation. In response to that protest, the contracting officer issued amendment No. 7 on February 6. The amendment incorporated all the changes to the statement of work and evaluation factors requested by the protester. The amendment also included interface information from the eTS contractor. On February 15, prior to the revised February 16 closing date, KCI filed this protest with our Office.[2] According to the protester, since EDS owns the Sabre GDS system and has previously provided interface information on terms and conditions to other GDS vendors using the Sabre system, the protester (and presumably other non-Sabre competitors) will be at a competitive disadvantage. Initially, we note that the protester does not argue that the interface requirement is not necessary to satisfy the agency needs. The solicitation, as amended, specifically defines the interface requirements and, generally identifies the steps vendors need to take in order to satisfy the requirement; the Sabre system is not required by the RFP. RFP amend. 7, at 6. The fact that other vendors may have a more favorable relationship with the eTS contractor and may be in a better position to create the required interface does not mean that the interface requirement is unreasonable.