Infotrinsic JV, LLC (N3220525R4034)

B-423683 Jul 29, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Roku Management Consulting, LLC (RMC), of Glen Allen, Virginia, protests the Department of the Navy's exclusion of RMC's proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. N3220525R4034 to provide financial management support services. RMC asserts that the agency's evaluation of RMC's technical proposal was based on unstated evaluation factors. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Roku Management Consulting, LLC File: B-423683 Date: July 29, 2025 David Roku for the protester. John E. Toner, Esq., T. Alexander Cloud, Jr., Esq., Sophia I. Hernandez Tragesser, Esq., and William D. Reach, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest based on inaccurate representations regarding the terms of the solicitation is dismissed for failing to state a sufficient basis for protest. DECISION Roku Management Consulting, LLC (RMC), of Glen Allen, Virginia, protests the Department of the Navy's exclusion of RMC's proposal from consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. N3220525R4034 to provide financial management support services. RMC asserts that the agency's evaluation of RMC's technical proposal was based on unstated evaluation factors. We dismiss the protest. BACKGROUND On January 21, 2025, the agency issued RFP No. N3220525R4034, seeking proposals to provide financial management support services for the Department of the Navy's Military Sealift Command. The solicitation provided for award on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis and established three evaluation factors: technical/organizational experience; past performance; and price. RFP at 31-37.[1] Of relevance here, with regard to the technical/organizational experience factor, the solicitation stated: The Offeror shall describe its relevant organizational experience . . . in performing work similar in scope, size and complexity to that described in the Performance Work Statement. Similar scope, size and complexity are defined as follows: * * * * * Size – over $10M[illion] total contract value (inclusive of options) per contract. Id. at 33-34. Echoing the above directions to offerors, the solicitation stated that “to be considered technically acceptable, the technical proposal shall detail organizational experience in performing work similar in scope, size, and complexity [to the performance work statement requirements].” Id. at 36. The solicitation further provided that “if any non-price factor is deemed unacceptable, the entire proposal will be deemed unacceptable.” Id. at 35. On or before the amended closing date of March 10, RMC submitted its proposal. RMC acknowledges that, in responding to the solicitation requirements regarding organizational experience, its technical proposal[2] “did not include contract number or project values,” but asserts that “there was no requirement to do so.”[3] Protest at 1-2. Thereafter, the agency evaluated RMC's proposal as unacceptable under the technical/organizational experience evaluation factor,[4] stating: RMC's proposal did not contain any mention of dollar value for previous contracts or projects. Without that information in the technical proposal, the technical team was unable to determine if the organizational experience is similar in size ($10 million or more) and complexity to this requirement. RMC Debriefing at 6. On June 24, the agency notified RMC that its proposal had been eliminated from consideration for award.[5] On June 30, RMC filed this protest. DISCUSSION RMC protests that the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal was based on “unstated evaluation criteria,” asserting that “[a]t no point did the solicitation . . . require offerors to disclose contract dollar values.” Protest at 6-7. More specifically, RMC asserts that: “[t]he agency's reliance on unstated thresholds, such as a $10 million size benchmark . . . denied RMC a fair opportunity to compete.” Id. at 9. Finally, RMC makes the assertion that “[n]owhere in [the solicitation] . . . is there any language indicating that proposals must include the monetary value of past projects, nor is there any specified benchmark of $10 million or more to establish size similarity.” Id. On July 11, the agency responded by requesting dismissal of the protest, arguing, among other things, that RMC's protest is based on factually inaccurate representations regarding the terms of the solicitation. Thereafter, we advised the protester that we intended to render a decision responding to the agency's request and stated that if the protester wished to respond to the agency's request it must do so by July 21. Electronic Protest Docketing System No. 7.