Airline Data Inc, LLC (05GAOA20Q0002)

B-418472 Apr 07, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Airline Data Inc, LLC, of Dallas, Texas, a small business, protests the issuance of a subscription agreement and purchase order to Relx, Inc., doing business as Reed Business Information, of New York, New York, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 05GA0A20Q0002, issued by the Government Accountability Office, Acquisition Management, (GAO-AM), for a commercial subscription agreement to airline flight data, flight data analysis, and related online tools. Airline argues that GAO-AM misevaluated its quotation as unacceptable and Reed's quotation as acceptable, and improperly issued the order to Reed at a higher price. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Airline Data Inc, LLC File:  B-418472 Date:  April 7, 2020 Jeff Pelletier, Airline Data Inc, LLC, for the protester. Gary Allen, Esq., and Lincoln Schroth, Esq., Government Accountability Office, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester’s quotation as unacceptable and improperly selected higher-priced quotation for award is dismissed where the protester was not competitively prejudiced by the award even assuming that the agency waived one requirement unequally in favor of the awardee; the protester conceded that its product did not meet another requirement.  DECISION Airline Data Inc, LLC, of Dallas, Texas, a small business, protests the issuance of a subscription agreement and purchase order to Relx, Inc., doing business as Reed Business Information, of New York, New York, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 05GA0A20Q0002, issued by the Government Accountability Office, Acquisition Management, (GAO-AM)[1], for a commercial subscription agreement to airline flight data, flight data analysis, and related online tools.  Airline argues that GAO-AM misevaluated its quotation as unacceptable and Reed’s quotation as acceptable, and improperly issued the order to Reed at a higher price.   We dismiss the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFQ, posted on beta.sam.gov on October 30, 2019, sought fixed-price quotations to provide a subscription to commercial off-the-shelf airline flight data (principally schedule and fare information) for a 1-year base period and 4 option years.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ, at 6.  The RFQ provided a statement of work describing the data, analysis, and tools that the agency sought.  The RFQ also stated that a single purchase order would be issued to the source that submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable quotation.  Id. at 5.   Among the requirements for data was that the data include worldwide airline schedules “includ[ing] historical data going back to January 2000, current data, and future worldwide schedule data out twelve months . . . .”  Id. at 5.  Additionally, the list of required tools included “demographics reporting capabilities.”  Id. at 6.  GAO-AM received two quotations, one from Airline at a total price of $140,000 (i.e., $28,000 annually) and one from Reed at a total price of $185,000 (i.e., $37,000 annually).  Protest at 1.  As relevant to the protest issues, in its quotation, Airline made no reference to demographic tools.  It described the extent of its airline schedule data as starting in 2004, and stated that “users can query Schedules up to 11 months into the future from the current date.”  AR, Tab 2, Airline Technical Quotation, at 3.  The GAO-AM technical evaluator reviewed both quotations and concluded that Reed’s product satisfied all RFQ requirements, but that Airline’s failed to meet two requirements.  Specifically, the product offered in Airline’s quotation: . . . did not meet Section 2:  Requirements, A. Data, 1. Worldwide airline schedule data.  The RFP requires that historical schedule data going back to January 2000 and future data for 12 months with estimates of schedules for carriers who have not filed with DOT [Department of Transportation].  The proposal only has schedule data back to January 2004 and future data for 11 months.  The proposal did not met Section 2:  Requirements, C. Online Tools, 2. Demographic reporting capabilities.  There is no mention of this capability in the proposal.  AR, Tab 3, Email from Technical Evaluator to Contracting Officer (Nov.