Such an interpretation imparts special meaning skewing the contract read as a whole. Further, the majority opines that GSA was provided information that the winning contractor would not be the preferred source for the major federal agency group in the geographical area. As noted above, concerning the first allegation by GSA, an existing award of a contract of an unstated type for an unstated duration does not demonstrate that Travel Centre would not be the preferred source for the services at issue. Being a preferred source is far less than a guarantee of business and suggests that agencies may opt not to utilize such services. The findings of fact do not indicate the bases for Travel Centre's best and final offer.
Any conclusions relating thereto are, therefore, arbitrary.
Travel Centre bears the burden of demonstrating reasonable reliance and causation in order to prevail on entitlement. Such fundamental prerequisites to relief should not be assumed in favor of the moving party. Regarding the fifth GSA allegation, the majority makes a statement which merits particular comment. What is propounded as a proposition of law amounts to dictum because the underlying facts have not been established. The findings do not identify any individual who may have possessed the information and been connected with this procurement.