Following a sustained protest, the agency canceled an RFQ and issued a new solicitation with less restrictive requirements. The protester argued the less restrictive requirements were evidence of the agency’s bias in favor of one offeror. GAO disagreed. An agency’s decision to revise a solicitation to foster competition by enhancing the viability of non-incumbents does not mean the agency is biased in favor of any particular offeror.
CW Government Travel, Inc. d/b/a CWTSata Travel, GAO B-420412, B-420412.2
Background
GSA issued an RFQ seeking travel management services for the Army. After evaluating quotations, GSA awarded a task order to BCD Travel. An unsuccessful offeror, CW Government Travel, filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims, challenging the award to BCD. The court sustained the protest, finding, among other things, that GSA had not properly applied the key personnel requirements to BCD.
Following the court’s decision, GSA decided to terminate the award to BDC and cancel the solicitation. GSA then issued a new solicitation that removed some of the key personnel requirements from the previous solicitation. CW filed a protest with GAO, alleging that the agency erred in canceling the previous solicitation and challenging the terms of the new solicitation.
Legal Analysis
- New Solicitation Was Not Too Vague – CW complained that the technical evaluation factors in the new solicitations were so vague and generic that vendors lacked sufficient information to intelligently prepare bids. GAO reasoned that CW had not acknowledged that the new RFQ’s instructions required the inclusion of additional information. When taking these instructions into account, the new RFQ s’ requirements were substantially similar to the previous RFQ. Thus, the new RFQ was not too vague.
- Agency Was Still Obligated to Assess Unbalanced Pricing – CW alleged the new RFQ unresaonably removed a requirement to assess unablanced pricing. GAO didn’t find this problematic. Regardless of what the RFQ stated, GSA was still required by the FAR and DoD class deviation to evaluate unbalanced pricing.
- GSA Was Not Unduly Favoring BCD – CW contended that the GSA had issued a new RFQ to favor BCD. As evidence, CW noted that the removal of the key personnel requirements made it easier for BCD to compete. But GAO didn’t see this as reflecting bias. An agency may reasonably provide for an evaluation that fosters competition by increasing the viability of proposals submitted by non-incumbents.
CW is represented by Lars E. Anderson, Charlotte R. Rosen, and James P. Miller of Feldman & Pittleman, P.C. The agency is represented by Jeremiah Strack of the General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and John Sorrenti participated in the preparation of the decision.