Wave Digital Assets, LLC (15M50024QA4400003)

B-423217,B-423217.2 Mar 14, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Wave Digital Assets, LLC, of Los Angeles, California, protests the award of a contract by the Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), to Command Services & Support, Inc. (CMDSS), of Haymarket, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 15M50024QA4400003. The solicitation sought proposals to assist the USMS in "managing and disposing of [seized/forfeited] cryptocurrency assets." See Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP attach. 6, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4. Although Wave's proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable (which its protest does not contest), Wave asserts that CMDSS's proposal (and that of the third competing offeror) should have been rejected for failing to demonstrate possession of federal and state licenses. Protest at 4-10. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Wave Digital Assets, LLC File: B-423217; B-423217.2 Date: March 14, 2025 Shane J. McCall, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., and Annie E. Birney, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, for the protester. Francis E. Purcell Jr., Esq., and Joseph R. Berger, Esq., Thompson Hine LLP, for Command Services & Support, Inc., the intervenor. C. Joseph Carroll, Esq., Samantha Davis, Esq., Shandora Acrey, Esq., and Jonathan E. O’Connell, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency failed to properly apply the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Wave Digital Assets, LLC, of Los Angeles, California, protests the award of a contract by the Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), to Command Services & Support, Inc. (CMDSS), of Haymarket, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 15M50024QA4400003. The solicitation sought proposals to assist the USMS in “managing and disposing of [seized/forfeited] cryptocurrency assets.” See Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP attach. 6, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 4.[1] Although Wave’s proposal was rejected as technically unacceptable (which its protest does not contest), Wave asserts that CMDSS’s proposal (and that of the third competing offeror) should have been rejected for failing to demonstrate possession of federal and state licenses. Protest at 4‑10. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 5, 2024, the agency issued RFP No. 15M50024QA4400003, seeking proposals for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to provide assistance to the USMS in managing and disposing of “Class 2-4 cryptocurrencies”[2] that have been seized under the DOJ’s asset forfeiture program.[3] The solicitation stated that the “cryptocurrency portfolio” that will be transitioned to the contractor upon contract execution has a total market value of $77.1 million. PWS at 4-5. The solicitation’s PWS identifies specific tasks the contractor must perform,[4] as well as more general contractor responsibilities. Among other things, the PWS noted that “[t]he cryptocurrency industry is constantly evolving and changing” and provided that the contractor “shall remain up to date on trends, technology updates, regulations, etc.” Id. at 9. Similarly, under the heading “Relationship,” the PWS stated: The Contractor shall maintain a close and cooperative working relationship with USMS and make appropriate recommendations. The Contractor shall perform required functions in accordance with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations applicable to the services being provided as well as any policies as specified by the USMS. The Contractor shall obtain and keep current throughout the duration of the contract all licenses, insurance policies, permits, and related documents common within the industry and necessary as established by any regulations to operate this type of business. Id. at 24-25. With regard to source selection, the solicitation provided that award would be made on the basis of a best‑value tradeoff and established the following evaluation factors: experience/oral presentation; technical capability/resumes; other data; and price.[5] AR, Tab 4, RFP attach.