KesselRun Corporate Travel Solutions, LLC (47QMCB25Q0006)

B-423311 Apr 10, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KesselRun Corporate Travel Solutions, LLC (KesselRun), a small business of Roswell, Georgia, protests the non-selection of its quotation for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QMCB25Q0006, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for travel and expense consulting services. The protester contends the agency's decision to reject KesselRun's quotation was unreasonable and contrary to regulation. 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: KesselRun Corporate Travel Solutions, LLC File: B-423311 Date: April 10, 2025 Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., and Annie E. Birney, Esq., Koprince, McCall, Pottroff, LLC, for the protester. Amanda Gramlich, Esq., and Sharon Chen, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the exclusion of the protester’s quotation from the competition is denied where the agency reasonably found the protester was ineligible for award where its Federal Supply Schedule contract included an insufficient period of performance to cover the potential duration of the anticipated blanket purchase agreement. DECISION KesselRun Corporate Travel Solutions, LLC (KesselRun), a small business of Roswell, Georgia, protests the non-selection of its quotation for the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47QMCB25Q0006, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for travel and expense consulting services. The protester contends the agency’s decision to reject KesselRun’s quotation was unreasonable and contrary to regulation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on December 30, 2024, under GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), and pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 (Federal Supply Schedules), seeking consulting support in the areas of corporate travel management practices, architectures, and technologies. Agency Report (AR), exh. 6, RFQ, amend. 001 at 2.[1] The RFQ anticipated the establishment of a single BPA, with a 1‑year base period of performance and four 1‑year option periods. Id. at 11. The agency would establish a BPA with the vendor “whose quote, in conforming to the RFQ” provided the overall best value to the agency. Id. at 26. GSA would utilize a tradeoff process, considering the following factors: (1) technical approach and oral presentation; (2) key personnel; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. The RFQ provided that the non-price factors were of equal importance, and when combined, were more important than price. Id. The solicitation specifically provided that in making award, GSA would utilize the procedures in FAR section 8.405-3 (Blanket Purchase Agreements). Id. KesselRun timely submitted its quotation by the established due date of January 21, 2025. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. Prior to evaluation, the contracting officer explains he undertook a preliminary review of all submitted quotations to determine if they met the RFQ’s submission requirements. Id.; see RFQ at 21 (“[Q]uotes must include all information required in Section 5.2 to be considered for award[.]”). The contracting officer explains KesselRun’s “quote did not meet the RFQ requirements for consideration of award and I reasonably determined KesselRun’s quote was not technically acceptable and thus, ineligible for award.” COS at 3; see also AR, exh. 11, Quotation Review Spreadsheet at 1. Specifically, the agency determined KesselRun’s quotation failed to satisfy the RFQ’s requirements in three areas. First, GSA found that KesselRun’s underlying FSS contract expired before the end date of the BPA’s total potential ordering period. COS at 3. Second, the agency concluded that KesselRun failed to submit the requisite number of past performance references (and related supporting materials) as established in the RFQ. Id. Third, GSA determined KesselRun’s quotation offered labor rate pricing that exceeded the rates established in the firm’s FSS contract. Id. On January 22, GSA notified KesselRun that its quotation was ineligible for award. Id. KesselRun filed the instant protest on February 3. DISCUSSION KesselRun challenges the agency’s ineligibility finding.