Omega World Travel, Inc., B-280456.2, September 17, 1998

B-280456.2 Sep 17, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where there is no requirement that an agency define its needs for commercial-off-the-shelf software by commercial brand name. The RFP was issued on June 1. The software must have the capability to directly export the related accounting transactions into GAO's Financial Management System. The functional requirements were divided into the following four categories: (1) pre-travel processes. Specific and detailed software capabilities or features to be provided were listed. The software was required to "[r]eport outstanding travel advances. The software was required to "identify charges made to employees' personal government charge cards and the agency's central Government Transportation charge account.". View Decision Matter of: Omega World Travel, Inc. File: B-280456.2 Date: September 17, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys 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.