Cw Government Travel, Inc., D/B/A Cwtsatotravel v. United States
110 Fed. Cl. 462
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- CWT protests GSA ETS2 procurement for travel management services under RFP QMAD-JM-100001-N; ETS2 is successor to ETS1 with broad agency use and multi-year timeline.
- GSA limited awards to two max via best‑value analysis; Phase I/II IV&V evaluations determined technical and price merit.
- Concur and CWT submitted proposals; CWT received Marginal ratings in several areas, Concur received Very Good overall.
- GSA issued a Determination & Findings (D&F) approving a single award to Concur under FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1)(iii) based on Concur being the only qualified and capable source at a reasonable price.
- SSAC/SSA recommended Concur as superior on technical merit and lowest price; dual award was favored in theory but single award chosen per FAR exception.
- Court grants injunctive relief and orders reevaluation consistent with FAR 16.504(c); Concur’s award remains in effect during reevaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CWT has standing to challenge the award | CWT shows substantial chance of award if errors corrected | CWT lacks standing due to Marginal rating and alleged lack of qualification | CWT has standing |
| Whether protest is timely | Timeliness preserved despite post‑award challenge | Waiver/Blue & Gold constraints apply | Timely; not barred by Blue & Gold waiver |
| Whether single award to Concur violated FAR 16.504(c) | Exception requires only one qualified source; Concur not sole qualified | Concur only source qualified and capable at reasonable price; single award permitted | Single award inconsistent with FAR 16.504(c); improper approach |
| Whether unequal treatment occurred in evaluation | Concur postaward remediation treated more favorably than CWT | Remediation plans differ but were allowed under RFP; no prejudice | Finds unequal treatment prejudicial to CWT; supports injunctive relief |
| Whether injunctive relief is appropriate | Irreparable harm from losing chance to compete; market impact | Delay and transition costs; insufficient for injunctive relief | Injunctive relief appropriate; reevaluation ordered; award to Concur stayed pending reevaluation |
Key Cases Cited
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (clear statutory/regulatory violations and prejudicial impact standard)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (substantial chance/prejudice standard in bid protests)
- Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (prejudice requirement in protest standing/merits)
- Labatt Food Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standing requires prejudice in bid protests; substantive review)
- American Federation of Government Employees v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (interested party standing and CICA requirements)