The Alamo Travel Group, LP (RFQ-1632531)

B-422293,B-422293.2 Apr 19, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Alamo Travel Group, LP, a women-owned small business of San Antonio, Texas, protests the issuance of an order to Cruise Ventures, Inc., a small business of Virginia Beach, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1632531, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Human Resource Activity (DHRA) for servicemember travel management company services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of its quotation was unreasonable and that the agency engaged in disparate treatment of quotations. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: The Alamo Travel Group, LP File: B-422293; B-422293.2 Date: April 19, 2024 Barry Roberts, Esq., Roberts Attorneys, PA, for the protester. Ambika J. Biggs, Esq., William L. Walsh, Jr., Esq., and Eliza J. Unrein, Esq., Hirschler Fleischer, PC, for Cruise Ventures, Inc., the intervenor. Hattie Russell DuBois, Esq., and William C. Moorhouse, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s quotation was unreasonable and disparate is denied where the record demonstrates the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and differences in evaluation ratings resulted from differences in the protester’s and awardee’s quotations. DECISION The Alamo Travel Group, LP, a women-owned small business of San Antonio, Texas, protests the issuance of an order to Cruise Ventures, Inc., a small business of Virginia Beach, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1632531, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Human Resource Activity (DHRA) for servicemember travel management company services. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of its quotation was unreasonable and that the agency engaged in disparate treatment of quotations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2023, DHRA issued[1] the RFQ under FAR subpart 8.4 to holders of GSA federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts with special item number 561510, travel agent services, seeking quotations from vendors to provide travel management company services. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 4; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1D, RFQ at 3.[2] The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price order with a 1-year base period, up to four 1-year options, and an additional 6-month option to extend services. COS at 4. The RFQ was exclusively set aside for small business concerns and announced a two‑phase procurement approach. RFQ at 79. Under phase one, vendors were required to submit a passenger name record validation configuration worksheet, which DHRA would evaluate on a pass/fail basis. Id. Under phase two, vendors were required to submit quotations that the agency would evaluate, and subsequently issue an order to the responsible vendor whose quotation conformed to the RFQ and would be most advantageous to the government, considering price and the two non-price factors of technical capability and past performance. Id. at 3, 85. Of the two non-price factors, technical capability was more important than past performance, and when combined, the non‑price factors were significantly more important than price. Id. at 85. The solicitation advised that quotations would receive an adjectival rating under the technical capability factor. Id. at 87. As relevant here, a quotation would receive a rating of marginal where it “has not demonstrated an adequate approach or understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.” Id. The RFQ explained that any quotation receiving a rating of marginal or unacceptable under the technical capability factor would be “deemed to have a risk that is so high that award cannot be made against the quot[ation] and the quot[ation] [would] not be further evaluated.” Id. at 86, 87. After selecting vendors to advance to phase two of the competition, including Alamo and Cruise Ventures, DHRA received quotations from three vendors by the November 17 deadline for receipt of quotations.[3] COS at 5, 6, 8. The agency’s technical evaluation board assigned Alamo’s quotation a rating of marginal under the technical capability factor, and Alamo’s quotation was not further evaluated under the past performance or price factors. Id. at 8‑9; AR, Tab 4, Alamo Brief Explanation at 5. The agency ultimately selected Cruise Ventures for award on December 21, and this protest followed. DISCUSSION Alamo argues that DHRA’s evaluation of its quotation was unreasonable in multiple respects.