CW Government Travel, Inc. v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 666
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- CW Government Travel, Inc. (CWT) filed a bid protest challenging GSA's ETS2 Solicitation for travel management services.
- The protest centers on a 15-year fixed pricing schedule alleged to contravene customary commercial practice.
- ETS2 follows the prior ETS1 contracts, with a 15-year term comprising a 3-year base and three 4-year options.
- The Solicitation includes nine challenged provisions plus a Market Adjustment Clause; CWT seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
- GAO previously sustained ambiguities and the agency issued Amendment 0013 clarifying mandatory requirements versus objectives.
- The court granted in part and denied in part: invalidated the 15-year fixed pricing schedule; other claims denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15-year pricing consistency | CWT contends 15-year fixed pricing is inconsistent with customary practice. | GSA asserts market research supports customary practice and waiver suffices. | 15-year fixed pricing inconsistent; invalid without waiver. |
| Pricing assumptions ambiguity | CWT argues pricing-assumption language is ambiguous about limits on work. | GSA contends assumptions define limits and are not ambiguous. | Not ambiguous; reasonably interpreted to set pricing limits. |
| Changes clause compliance | CWT claims nine provisions authorize unilateral, uncompensated changes in violation of FAR 52.212-4(e). | Pricing mechanism limits changes and any beyond must be negotiated under 52.212-4(c). | No unilateral changes; compliant with changes clause when viewed with pricing mechanism. |
| Customary commercial practice for nine provisions | CWT asserts nine provisions violate FAR 12.301(a)(2) and waiver requirements in 12.302(c). | GSA's market research shows these provisions align with practice; waiver unnecessary for this record. | Nine provisions are consistent with customary commercial practice; waiver not required here. |
| Competition in contracting act (CICA) | CWT argues terms unduly restrict competition by unilateral changes and fixed option pricing. | Terms are rationally related to agency objectives and not unduly restrictive. | Not unduly restrictive; CICA not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (arbitrary or capricious review under 5 U.S.C. § 706)
- Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. Dalton, 88 F.3d 990 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (ambiguous solicitations require reasonable interpretation; deference to agency)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standing in bid protests requires a non-trivial competitive injury)
- Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr. v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (contract disputes act review of government discretion)
- CIGNA Gov't Servs., LLC v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. 100 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (declaratory judgments and scope of bid protest relief)
- ICP Northwest, LLC v. United States, 98 Fed.Cl. 29 (Fed. Cl. 2011) (standing and injury in bid protests; evaluation of harm)