CW Government Travel, Inc. (47QMCB20Q0010)

B-419193.3 May 06, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CW Government Travel, Inc. (CWT), of Arlington, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend that the General Services Administration (GSA) reimburse the firm its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest (B-419193, B-419193.2). CWT challenged the issuance of a task order to BCD Travel USA, LLC (BCD), of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QMCB20Q0010, which was issued by GSA for travel management company (TMC) services for the Department of the Army. CWT argues that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to what the requester contends were its clearly meritorious challenges to the agency's evaluation of BCD's quotation under the technical approach and past performance factors. We grant the request. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  CW Government Travel, Inc.--Costs File:  B-419193.3 Date:  May 6, 2021 Lars E. Anderson, Esq., Charlotte R. Rosen, Esq., and James P. Miller, Esq., Odin Feldman Pittleman PC, for the requester. Jeremiah Strack, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request that GAO recommend reimbursement of protest costs is granted where the initial protest arguments challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s quotation under the technical approach and past performance factors were clearly meritorious because a reasonable inquiry by the agency would have identified the basis on which the agency took corrective action, and where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to the protest.  DECISION   CW Government Travel, Inc. (CWT), of Arlington, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend that the General Services Administration (GSA) reimburse the firm its reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest (B-419193, B-419193.2).  CWT challenged the issuance of a task order to BCD Travel USA, LLC (BCD), of Buffalo Grove, Illinois, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QMCB20Q0010, which was issued by GSA for travel management company (TMC) services for the Department of the Army.  CWT argues that the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to what the requester contends were its clearly meritorious challenges to the agency’s evaluation of BCD’s quotation under the technical approach and past performance factors. We grant the request. BACKGROUND GSA issued the RFQ on May 13, 2020, under the Federal Supply Schedules (FSS) provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 8.4.  Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2, RFQ at 1.[1]  The solicitation was limited to vendors[2] who hold FSS contract special item number 561510, travel agent services, and sought quotations to provide “travel services support for authorized travelers on official travel for designated United States Army activities and facilities throughout the [Department of Defense] in the contiguous United States (CONUS), [Army Corps of Engineers] Alaska and Hawaii locations, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.”  Id.at 5.  The contractor will be required to provide “personnel, equipment, facilities, licenses, materials, resources, supplies, and services” necessary to meet all requirements of the performance work statement (PWS).  Id. at 5.  The RFQ anticipated the issuance of a task order with fixed-prices for contract line item numbers (CLINs) with a base period of 1 year and four 1-year options.  Id. at 16‑22.  The RFQ stated that quotations would be evaluated on the basis of the following five factors:  (1) TMC passenger name record (PNR) validation, (2) technical approach, (3) past performance, (4) small business participation, and (5) price.[3]  Id. at 104.  The TMC PNR validation factor and the small business participation factor were to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and acceptable/unacceptable basis, respectively.  Id. at 104-05, 108-09.  The technical approach factor identified six criteria:  (1) technical approach, (2) corporate experience, (3) implementation and transition, (4) central billing account (CBA) reconciliation process, (5) key personnel plan, and (6) qualification of key personnel.  Id. at 106-07.  The RFQ did not specify the relative weights of these criteria, and did not provide for the assignment of separate adjectival ratings.  See id. The RFQ provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, and that “[t]he Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.”  Id.