TITLE: B-297986, Knowledge Connections, Inc., May 18, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297986
DATE: May 18, 2006
***************************************************
B-297986, Knowledge Connections, Inc., May 18, 2006

   Decision

   Matter of: Knowledge Connections, Inc.

   File: B-297986

   Date: May 18, 2006

   Marion J. Bonhomme-Knox for the protester.

   Christopher S. Tiroff, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the
   agency.

   Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest alleging that request for proposals (RFP) for travel management
   services that gives offerors the option to use any electronic travel
   reservation system to interface with the General Services Administration's
   eTravel System (eTS) improperly favors offerors using a particular
   electronic travel reservation system developed and owned by the eTS
   contractor is denied where the RFP does not restrict offerors to that
   specific system and any alleged competitive advantage results from a
   firm's prior contracts and not from improper or unfair agency action.

   DECISION

   Knowledge Connections, Inc. (KCI) protests the terms of request for
   proposals (RFP) No. VA-200-06-RP-0001, issued by the Department of
   Veterans Affairs (VA) for travel management services.

   We deny the protest.

   On December 1, 2005, the VA issued the solicitation as a total
   service-disabled-veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside for an
   indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for a single Travel
   Management Center (TMC) to provide nationwide travel services for VA
   employees and veterans. The VA explains that currently, it has no
   centralized travel management operation and it uses multiple contractors
   to provide travel services, including, for example, World Wide Travel,
   Omega Travel Agency, and Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the General
   Services Administration's (GSA) eTravel system (eTS) initiative.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The VA expects that the TMC
   contractor will eventually provide all travel services for the VA,
   including self-service online booking of local, domestic, and
   international travel, as well as non-self-service options. RFP sect.
   C.1.1. As relevant here, currently, VA personnel may book travel on the
   eTS. Once a ticket or other reservation is made in the eTS, that booking
   information must be communicated to one of the VA travel management
   contractors. The travel management contractor then actually purchases the
   ticket or other reservation made on the eTS.

   Under the RFP, at the VA's option, the VA will continue to use the eTS for
   a period of time. Therefore, the TMC contractor is required to develop all
   interfaces necessary to send and receive data between the TMC contractor's
   electronic travel reservation system, called a Global Distribution System
   (GDS), [1] and the eTS which provides the self-service booking option to
   VA personnel. The VA has issued a task order to EDS for its eTS. Under
   this task order, EDS, which uses the Sabre GDS, must "accommodate" the VA
   travel management contractor selected under this procurement. Contracting
   Officer Statement at 1. Under the travel management solicitation, a vendor
   may use any GDS it chooses, provided the vendor's system can communicate
   with the eTS.

   The amended due date for receipt of proposals was January 26, 2006. On
   January 20, KCI filed an agency-level protest challenging the terms of the
   solicitation. In response to that protest, the contracting officer issued
   amendment No. 7 on February 6. The amendment incorporated all the changes
   to the statement of work and evaluation factors requested by the
   protester. The amendment also included interface information from the eTS
   contractor. On February 15, prior to the revised February 16 closing date,
   KCI filed this protest with our Office.[2]

   According to the protester, since EDS owns the Sabre GDS system and has
   previously provided interface information on terms and conditions to other
   GDS vendors using the Sabre system, the protester (and presumably other
   non-Sabre competitors) will be at a competitive disadvantage.

   Initially, we note that the protester does not argue that the interface
   requirement is not necessary to satisfy the agency needs. The
   solicitation, as amended, specifically defines the interface requirements
   and, generally identifies the steps vendors need to take in order to
   satisfy the requirement; the Sabre system is not required by the RFP. RFP
   amend. 7, at 6. The fact that other vendors may have a more favorable
   relationship with the eTS contractor and may be in a better position to
   create the required interface does not mean that the interface requirement
   is unreasonable. The government has no obligation to equalize a
   competitive advantage that a potential offeror may enjoy as a result of a
   prior government contract or prior professional relationships unless the
   advantage resulted from unfair motives or actions by the contracting
   agency. Bironas, Inc., B-249428, Nov. 23, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 365 at 3.
   There is no evidence in the record that any competitive advantage enjoyed
   by a potential offeror is a result of improper or unfair agency actions.
   Accordingly, we have no basis to question the agency's interface
   requirement.

   The protester also contends that the VA has not adequately justified its
   decision to make a single award, instead of multiple awards. Federal
   Acquisition Regulation sect. 16.504(c)(1)(C) requires the contracting
   officer to determine whether multiple awards are appropriate when planning
   an acquisition for an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract.
   The VA has concluded that multiple awards for these services are not in
   the best interest of the government. The VA currently uses multiple
   contractors to provide travel management services and explains that this
   arrangement has become administratively burdensome. The VA specifically
   reports that resolving interface problems among the multiple contractors
   has proven to be difficult and costly. Update to Determination of
   Appropriateness of Single vs. Multiple Awards. The VA believes that by
   making the award to a single contractor and by creating a single point of
   contact, this will alleviate the administrative burden of determining
   which travel management contractor is responsible for resolving service
   issues. The VA also believes that customer service will be improved by
   streamlining the process and maintaining continuity for the traveler by
   using a single travel management contractor for all VA employees.
   Additionally, according to the VA, a single contractor using one system
   will reduce VA's training costs. The VA has determined that multiple
   awards would, at a minimum, cost the government an additional $309,704.
   Id. at 5.

   In response to the VA's determination that multiple awards would not be in
   the best interest of the government, the protester has not submitted any
   convincing evidence to rebut the agency's position. Here, given the
   agency's explanation, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
   we have no basis to find that the agency's decision to procure its
   requirements by making a single award is unreasonable.

   Finally, the protester argues that the VA should use the GSA Travel
   Services Solution (TSS) schedule contract to acquire travel services and
   that the use of this contract will lower the VA's acquisition costs.[3]
   The agency reports that it decided not to use the TSS contract because
   there were only two SDVOSBs on the schedule and using the TSS contract
   would not have maximized the opportunity for all interested SDVOSBs to
   compete for this requirement. We note that the protester is one of the two
   SDVOSB vendors on the schedule. It thus appears that the protester's
   desire for the agency to satisfy this requirement through the schedule is
   an attempt to restrict competition and give the protester a better chance
   to win the award. Since the purpose of our bid protest function is to
   ensure that agencies obtain full and open competition to the maximum
   extent practicable, we will generally favor otherwise proper agency
   actions--like the one here to use a competitive set-aside
   solicitation--which are taken to increase competition. See Hughes Missile
   Sys. Co., B-257627.2, Dec. 21, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 256 at 16.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] The GDS is an electronic travel reservation system that provides
   travel and transportation information for travel agencies, corporations,
   and travel web sites. The GDS provides users with schedules, availability,
   pricing, reservations, and ticketing capability for travel suppliers
   including airlines, car rental companies, and hotels. There are a number
   of GDS systems including the Sabre system and the Apollo system used by
   the protester.

   [2] In its initial protest to our Office, the protester raised several
   issues concerning the terms of the solicitation, such as the agency's
   decision to "bundle" certain requirements under this RFP, the agency's
   failure to provide VA's standard travel guidelines, the agency's failure
   to maximize the potential for women-owned small business participation,
   and the agency's failure to allow for alternate proposals. In its report
   to our Office responding to the protest, the agency specifically responded
   to each of the protester's issues. In its comments on the agency report,
   KCI failed to substantively address the agency's responses. As a result,
   we consider these issues to be abandoned and will not address them. Datum
   Timing, Div. of Datum Inc., B-254493, Dec. 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 328 at
   5.

   [3] In response to our request that the protester more specifically
   identify those solicitation provisions that it considers unduly
   restrictive or places it at a competitive disadvantage, the protester
   raised several additional concerns with the terms of the solicitation. For
   example, the protester contends that the VA did not provide its draft
   Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the eTS contractor, that the VA
   intends to withhold payment for invalid funding obligation numbers, and
   that the VA did not provide specific test requirements for a capabilities
   demonstration. In response to the protester's concerns, the agency reports
   that it will amend the solicitation to provide all offerors with
   information on the MOU, it will inform offerors that they will not be held
   responsible if the funding obligation number provided by the traveler is
   incorrect, and it will permit vendors that sign a nondisclosure agreement
   access to the eTS contractor's training manual and will provide specific
   test scenarios for the demonstrations. We view these issues as academic in
   view of the agency's responses. Finally, we have reviewed the remainder of
   the protester's objections to the terms of the solicitation and find them
   without merit.