GovernmentExecutive.com

The General Services Administration's governmentwide electronic travel program was placed on the congressional chopping block last week, due to fears that the program eliminates opportunities for small travel agencies to do business with the government.

An amendment to the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill (H.R. 3058), introduced June 30 by Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, bars GSA from using money from an appropriations bill to "carry out the eTravel Service program."

The amendment passed 233-192 after debate on the House floor.

Arguing for her amendment, Velazquez told House members that GSA's eTravel program was "an ill-conceived mega-contract," and is "poised to eliminate" small travel agencies from working with the government.

Agencies subject to the Federal Travel Regulation were required by GSA in 2003 to award a task order to one of three eTravel vendors - - EDS, CW Government Travel Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corp. - - by the end of 2004 to provide an electronic travel booking system. The Defense Department is the only major agency that was exempted from the requirement because it was establishing its own end-to-end system, the Defense Travel System.

Each eTravel vendor is aligned with a major travel agency. EDS' FedTraveler.com is paired with Navigant Sato Travel; Northrop Grumman Corp.'s GovTrip is working with American Express Travel-Related Services Company Inc.; and CW Government Travel Inc.'s E2 Solutions is partnered with Carlson Wagonlit Government Travel. All eTravel systems were to be completed by Sept. 30, 2006.

Small travel agencies raised concerns about the system late last year with GSA and with the Small Business Administration, but told Government Executive that their petitions went unheard.

"GSA is cutting small businesses out, all in the name of streamlining, which they cannot even prove," Velazquez said. "If this amendment is not adopted, not one single small business travel agent will be able to do business with federal agencies, and this is outrageous. These mega-contracts have clearly gone too far, and it is time that we say enough is enough."

Velazquez said that her amendment would return GSA to a more balanced approach so both large and small travel agents could bid on federal contracts.

"With small businesses dominating the travel industry- - 99 percent of travel firms have 30 employees or less--they clearly could not afford to lose out on these opportunities," the lawmaker said.

GSA spokeswoman Viki Reath said that the agency has always been committed to working with all businesses to provide the best value. The Office of Management and Budget, which urged creation of the eTravel program, declined to comment.

Rep. John Olver, D-Mass., ranking member of the House Appropriations Transportation and Treasury subcommittee, said that GSA defied Congress by going forward with eTravel. He said that a conference report for fiscal 2004 on the omnibus appropriation bill covering GSA expressed concern about the mandatory nature of the program.

"[Congress] wanted some of this business to remain with the local and small business entrepreneurs," Olver said.

Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, R-Mich., chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the appropriations bill, defended eTravel, saying that the program saves money and eliminates redundant systems in agencies.

"[The amendment] would shut down eTravel," Knollenberg said. "The eTravel system saves taxpayers money and is easier to navigate for travel. The answer to the question [Velazquez] has does not involve shutting down eTravel."

Scott Guerrero, chief operating officer and executive vice president of CW Government Travel, said that Velazquez's statement that eTravel does not provide business to small travel agencies is false.

"We have spent more than $6 million with small businesses as part of this program," Guerrero said. "Small [travel] agencies can be selected by the [federal] agencies."

Olga Grkavac, executive vice president of the Information Technology Association of America, said that the House's vote was disappointing.

"The debate was short, and the benefits of the eTravel program were not discussed ... It was rather drastic," Grkavac said. "We certainly hope the Senate might consider this and that GSA and the White House would be opposed to this action."

According to Chris McMillan, CEO of Bonner Travel Service in Jackson, Miss., a task force of GSA officials and small business agents who were discussing ways to involve more small travel agencies in the eTravel program was abruptly dismantled.

McMillan said that once that folded, they asked Congress for help in stopping the eTravel "steamroller."

Duane Coleman, vice president of Sun Travel in El Paso, Texas, said that before eTravel, his agency received government business, but now only a handful of small travel agencies are receiving subcontracts with the primary eTravel contractors.

"We went to [the SBA and the GSA] several times and they gave no inclination to help us. So we went to the Hill," Coleman said. "Velazquez listened affirmatively to what we had to say and she agreed with our plight."

COMMENTS

• Before we were forced into GovTrip, our e-travel was efficiently and inexpensively handled by SATO, we traveled on Annual Orders, and filed one or two travel vouchers each month. GovTrip requires individual trip orders and vouchers processed through thier system, and charges for each transaction processed. Travel agent costs have sky rocketed, and efficiency of the entire travel process took a nose dive. GovTrip is slower than molasses to use and extraordinarily costly. Who gets the AXE for this blunder? GovExec.com reader Posted August 9, 2005 2:16 PM
• ". . .EDS, CW Government Travel Inc. and Northrop Grumman Corp. - - by the end of 2004 to provide an electronic travel booking system. The Defense Department is the only major agency that was exempted from the requirement . . ." Is there no one in congress that gives a rat's? Look at the big guys involved EDS and Northrop Grumman. They are both very big defense contractors. NG built weapons systems but not they are qualified to be a travel agent and software developer. This is because they are weapons systems guys with direct ties to DoD. DoD should not be exempted from this law! The small contractor, of any kind, has very little chance with DoD! DoD will "give" small and minority firms contracts to look good but the contracts amount to little if anything for the long run success of the little guy. Grumman and Boeing were not software developers but had the inroad to DoD to gain large software development contracts and make all the "little guys" subcontractors. They did this by getting the best qualified people from the "little guys" to submit in the bid package and if they won the bid they hired the guys - otherwisde everything went on as before. The only real chance a "little guy" has in contracting continuously with DoD is to be a sub for one of the big weapons system contractors or an outfit like IBM that acquired PWC to become very large and powerful in the DoD software business. DoD contracted with IBM for billions to build its BMMP but IBM had no real experiece in this process. IBM had hired all of the little guys as subs so everyone is happy. The DoD contractor will not be criticized for hiring IBM because of its past reputation (build in the hardware area not software development). The BMMP is not a coomputer system but definition of the business process and IBM has no experience in that area. Also, IBM has had a lot of trouble themselves in defining their own business process. However, the nine hundred pound gorilla is on the move and has been awarded the DoD billions of dollars to define the dept business processes. They hold working group meetings but cannot even tell when the information they receive is bad and they go with whatever the highest ranking DoD people involved have to say - even when they are wrong and are shown to be wrong! taxpayer Posted July 12, 2005 6:53 AM
• Is there a minimum guarantee on these contracts with FatCats Northrop Grumman, etc.? If the funding is blocked, will we be giving these vendors cash money for no work? Piss poor planning and not involving all the stakeholders make for TAXPAYER money thrown away. I want a refund, taken out of the salaries of the decisionmakers! GovExec.com reader Posted July 8, 2005 8:16 AM