Electronic Data Systems Corporation, B-280133; B-280133.2,

Electronic Data Systems Corporation, B-280133; B-280133.2, BNUMBER: B-280133; B-280133.2 DATE: September 3, 1998 TITLE: Electronic Data Systems Corporation, B-280133; B-280133.2, September 3, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Electronic Data Systems Corporation File:B-280133; B-280133.2 Date:September 3, 1998 David S. Cohen, Esq., Andrew B. Katz, Esq., John J. O'Brien, Esq., Alex D. Kond�, Esq., and Laurel Ann Hockey, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester. John W. Chierichella, Esq., Catherine E. Pollack, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, for BDM International, Inc., an intervenor. Maj. Jonathan C. Guden, Department of the Army, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency significantly understated the savings associated with the identified discriminators in its technical proposal, including time savings for travelers and authorizing officials resulting from proposed accelerated deployment of new official travel system, is denied where: (1) solicitation assigned only limited weight to deployment in the technical evaluation; and (2) agency reasonably focused on budgetary savings generated by a reduction in staffing rather than more intangible, incidental time savings and quality of life enhancements for travelers and authorizing officials. DECISION Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to BDM International, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAMT01-97-R-1003, for a new official travel system and travel management services. EDS primarily challenges the best value determination. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period of 5 years, with three 1-year options, for: (1) a new travel management software system, designated the Common User Interface (CUI), to be deployed to Department of Defense (DOD) users worldwide; (2) operation and maintenance of the CUI; and (3) travel management services with respect to official travel performed by travelers assigned to organizations in Defense Travel Region (DTR) 6 (comprised of the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky, and Indiana, and other designated areas). The CUI is an automated software system that will facilitate travel management by allowing DOD travelers to use their personal computers to handle functions that were previously performed on paper and in multiple steps, ensuring compliance with DOD travel policies, performing financial and accounting functions (such as "should cost" estimates, financial settlement computation, and electronic fund transfers), and maintaining travel data. The solicitation provided for award to be made to the "responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best overall value to the Government" under the following four criteria (listed in descending order of importance): (1) written proposal, comprised of factors for performance work statement (PWS) (with subfactors for CUI architecture, CUI functionality, CUI support and travel management services), past performance/prior experience/financial history, and subcontracting plan; (2) demonstration; (3) price/fees, including cost/price and point-of-sale discount (including discount for official air travel services and rebate of a percentage of the commissions received on all non-air travel services); and (4) oral presentation. RFP sec. M.7, Basis for Contract Award and Relative Importance of Evaluation Areas (Official). The solicitation stated that price/fees were "significantly less important than the combined evaluation of the written proposal, demonstration, and oral presentation." Id. Two proposals, from BDM and EDS, were received by the closing time. Both were included in the competitive range. Following discussions with the offerors, the Army requested best and final offers (BAFO).