BNUMBER: B-280456.2
DATE: September 17, 1998
TITLE: Omega World Travel, Inc., B-280456.2, September 17, 1998
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Omega World Travel, Inc.
File: B-280456.2
Date:September 17, 1998
Barry Roberts, Esq., and Brian J. Hundertmark, Esq., Roberts &
Hundertmark, for the protester.
Philip T. McCaffrey, Esq., U.S. General Accounting Office, for the
agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Where there is no requirement that an agency define its needs for
commercial-off-the-shelf software by commercial brand name, the agency
appropriately defined its needs for commercially available travel
management software by using a broad commercial item description
stated in terms of functional requirements.
DECISION
Omega World Travel, Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals
(RFP) No. OAM-98-N-0005, issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) for travel management services and a client/server-based travel
subsystem software package.
We deny the protest.
The RFP was issued on June 1, 1998. As relevant to this protest, the
RFP stated that the agency required:
a commercially available software package which supports travel
processing under federal regulations. The software would be used
by travelers or administrative staff supporting the travel
function to create travel orders and travel vouchers compliant
with the appropriate travel rules. The software must have the
capability to directly export the related accounting transactions
into GAO's Financial Management System.
RFP, Attachment B, section II, at 1.
The RFP listed technical and functional requirements in order for the
software to be able to run on the GAO network. As relevant here, the
functional requirements were divided into the following four
categories: (1) pre-travel processes; (2) post-travel processes; (3)
reports; and (4) special features. RFP, Attachment B, sections I--IV,
at 2-8. For each category, specific and detailed software
capabilities or features to be provided were listed. For example,
among other things, in the reports category, the software was required
to "[r]eport outstanding travel advances," RFP, Attachment B, section
III, at 7, and in the special features category, the software was
required to "identify charges made to employees' personal government
charge cards and the agency's central Government Transportation charge
account." RFP, Attachment B, section IV, at 8. Offerors were
advised, however, that the "RFP does not require that . . . the
awardee have access to the government's charge card database." RFP,
Executive Summary, at 2.
The amended closing date for receipt of proposals was July 20. RFP,
amendment No. 1, June 24, 1998. Omega did not submit a proposal by
the stated closing time.
Omega objects to the agency's description of its software needs by
listing in the RFP functional requirements for the software. Omega
believes that the agency should have described its needs by naming the
commercially available software which the agency learned as part of
its market research efforts would satisfy the RFP requirements. We
disagree.
Market research is conducted to determine if commercial items are
available to meet the government's needs. Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) sec. 10.002(b); see also FAR sec. 10.001(a)(3)(ii)(A).
Here, the agency, through its market research efforts, identified
PerDiemAzing and Gelco Travel Manager as commercially available
software which would satisfy its needs. However, there is no
requirement that the agency, in defining its needs for commercial
items, do so by listing commercial brand names. Rather, FAR sec.
11.002(a)(2)(i)(A)-(C) authorizes an agency to describe its needs for
commercial supplies or services in terms of functions to be performed,
performance required, or essential physical characteristics. See also
FAR sec. 12.202(b); Adventure Tech, Inc., B-253520, Sept. 29, 1993, 93-2
CPD para. 202 at 3-4.
Here, to acquire commercial travel management software, the agency
appropriately used a broad commercial item description stated in terms
of functional requirements. More specifically, the agency divided the
software's functional requirements into four categories and provided
detailed descriptions of the software capabilities or features to be
provided. Contrary to Omega's objection, while the agency was aware
of at least two commercial-off-the-shelf software products that would
satisfy its needs, the agency was not obligated to specify these
products in the RFP as the agency was not restricting its needs to a
particular brand name product. Instead, for this procurement for
commercial-off-the-shelf software, it was incumbent upon the offerors
to propose a commercial product to satisfy the government's functional
requirements.
Omega also contends that the RFP requirements to "[r]eport outstanding
travel advances," and to "identify charges made to employees' personal
government charge cards" are restrictive of competition because only a
travel agency that also owns the government charge card database--in
this case, the incumbent contractor, American Express--can meet these
requirements. However, Omega's argument is based on a factually
inaccurate premise.
The record shows that prior to the amended closing time, Omega was
told that American Express was no longer the agency's travel charge
card provider, and therefore would not have access to charge card
information. Moreover, the RFP's executive summary stated that the
RFP did not require the awardee to have access to the government's
charge card database. Obviously, if the awardee did not have access
to the government's charge card database, in order for the awardee to
comply with the referenced reporting requirements, either the traveler
or the government would have to furnish the necessary information to
the awardee. It is clear from this record that all potential offerors
could compete on an equal basis and that Omega's concern that American
Express essentially had an unfair competitive advantage because it
owned the government charge card database was unfounded.
Finally, in its comments on the agency report, Omega challenges, for
the first time, the functional requirement in the RFP that the
commercially available software interface electronically with the
agency's federal financial system software. RFP, Attachment B,
section IV, at 8. Omega maintains that the interface process requires
customization of the software, thereby rendering the software other
than commercial-off-the-shelf.
This allegation, involving an alleged solicitation impropriety
apparent prior to the July 20 amended closing time for receipt of
proposals, is untimely as it was not raised prior to that closing
time. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.2(a)(1) (1998);
Engelhard Corp., B-237824, Mar. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 324 at 7. In any
event, the agency explains that an interface is a separate program
that allows two software programs, i.e., the travel management
software and the financial systems software, to communicate with each
other. Omega has failed to show how the creation of an interface
involves the customization of commercially available software.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States