CW Government Travel, Inc. (47QMCB24R0001)

B-422714 Sep 27, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CW Government Travel, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to AdTrav Corporation, of Birmingham, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QMCB24R0001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for government-wide temporary duty lodging services. The protester argues that the agency failed to evaluate the awardee's proposed price reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: CW Government Travel, Inc. File: B-422714 Date: September 27, 2024 Lars E. Anderson, Esq., Lauren P. Farrar, Esq., Charlotte R. Rosen, Esq., and Brian A. Darst, Esq., Odin Feldman Pittleman PC, for the protester. Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., and Gregory P. Weber, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff, LLC, for AdTrav Corporation, the intervenor. Jeremiah Strack, Esq., and Briana L White, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of awardee’s price is denied where the solicitation did not require a price realism evaluation and the price evaluation conducted was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION CW Government Travel, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to AdTrav Corporation, of Birmingham, Alabama, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47QMCB24R0001, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for government-wide temporary duty lodging services. The protester argues that the agency failed to evaluate the awardee’s proposed price reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on January 12, 2024, under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15, seeking support services to manage government-wide temporary duty lodging programs for federal government travelers on official business. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 1, Conformed RFP at 20, 31. Through the solicitation, GSA and the Department of Defense (DOD) sought to obtain contractor support services to manage the GSA’s FedRooms program and the DOD Preferred program. RFP at 30. According to the agency, FedRooms and DOD Preferred are government-sponsored lodging programs offering lodging choices that are “policy‑compliant, have rates at or below per diem, meet all safety requirements, are exempt from hidden fees, and include additional negotiated amenities.” Id. The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed‑price contract for a 1‑year base period and three 1-year option periods. Id. at 56, 65. The solicitation provided for award on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering three factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price funding model. Id. at 74‑75. The technical and past performance factors, when combined, were more important than the price funding model. Id. at 74. The solicitation advised that award “may be made to other than the offer with the lowest proposed fee charged to the hoteliers in their funding model.” Id. at 75. Under the technical factor, proposals would be evaluated on the degree to which the submission meets the requirements of the solicitation, and would include an evaluation of technical capability and approach narratives, business plans, and oral presentations. Id. at 74. The RFP also provided that the agency would “look for clear evidence that the [o]fferor completely understands the [g]overnment[-]wide [temporary duty] [l]odging services requirement” when evaluating technical proposals. Id. at 76. As part of the technical proposal, offerors were to provide a business plan that includes quarterly projections for the contractor revenue and government funding generated by the offeror’s funding model. Id. at 72. The proposed business plan was required to state “why the recommended funding models will be attractive to, and supported by potential participating properties, GSA, DOD, and other stakeholders such as Federal Government travelers and travel agencies,” including how the “proposed fees will facilitate increased participation and coverage in the FedRooms and DOD Preferred programs.” Id. As relevant here, the solicitation explained that government-wide lodging programs are operated as a “self-funding and revenue[-]generating model,” under which the contractor “recoups its operating costs via a service fee model included in the negotiated rate that the contractor collects from each property on all consumed and reported room nights.” Id. at 29.