KnightsBridge Systems, LLC (33330225RF0010026)

B-423882,B-423882.2 Jan 02, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KnightsBridge Systems LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 33330225RF0010026, issued by the Smithsonian Institution for services in support of the development, design, and strategy for the National Museum of African American History and Culture's (NMAAHC) existing online digital exhibition experience. The protester contends that the Smithsonian evaluated its proposal unreasonably and on the basis of unstated evaluation criteria, and demonstrated bias against the protester. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. View Decision Decision Matter of: KnightsBridge Systems LLC File: B-423882; B-423882.2 Date: January 2, 2026 Naresh Bajaj for the protester. Katherine A. Bartell, Esq., and Claire Dean, Esq., Smithsonian Institution, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging errors in the evaluation of the protester's proposal is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging bias is dismissed as legally and factually insufficient where the protester's bare allegations are speculative, and the protester has adduced no evidence of wrongdoing. DECISION KnightsBridge Systems LLC, a small business of McLean, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 33330225RF0010026, issued by the Smithsonian Institution for services in support of the development, design, and strategy for the National Museum of African American History and Culture's (NMAAHC) existing online digital exhibition experience. The protester contends that the Smithsonian evaluated its proposal unreasonably and on the basis of unstated evaluation criteria, and demonstrated bias against the protester. We deny the protest in part and dismiss the protest in part. BACKGROUND On April 10, 2025, the Smithsonian[1] issued the RFP, which sought proposals to assist the NMAAHC with the development, design, and strategy for its existing online digital exhibition experience, known as the Searchable Museum, that serves as an extension of and companion to its in‑museum Slavery and Freedom exhibition and other permanent museum exhibitions. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1, 7. The RFP contemplated award of a single fixed‑price contract[2] with a 6‑month period of performance and seven 6‑month options. Id. at 2‑3. The RFP provided that, among proposals satisfying certain minimum qualification requirements not relevant to the allegations here, the Smithsonian would make award on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering five factors: plan of accomplishment; firm's experience and past performance; key personnel and subcontractors; management plan; and price.[3] Id. at 39‑43. The RFP did not specify the importance of the non‑price factors with respect to each other, but stated that the non‑price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. at 43. Relevant to the allegations here, under the plan of accomplishment factor, the RFP required offerors to “provide a narrative strategy that fully addresses the required services and deliverables set forth in [the statement of work (SOW).]” Id. at 40. It further specified that “[t]he [p]lan of [a]ccomplishment should reflect [the offeror's] creativity, knowledge of current, new, best practices in software development, web-design, and fields related to the work under this RFP, and how to best deliver these services to museums/cultural institutions.” Id. With respect to the firm's experience and past performance factor, the RFP instructed offerors to provide at least three examples of work comparable to that described in the RFP performed by the offeror within the past two years. Id. The RFP stated that “[a]dditional consideration will be given to [o]fferors with previous government, non-profit, art industry, and/or museum experience.” Id. It also stated that “[o]fferors should highlight past experience creating similar services for government and arts and cultural institutions.” Id. Under the key personnel and subcontractors factor, the RFP required the submission of résumés for key personnel. Id. at 41. The RFP advised that “[s]kills sets, credentials, and relevant experiences of the proposed team shall be compared to the task requirements and specific skill requirements called for in [the SOW].” Id. The Smithsonian received 36 timely proposals by the RFP's response date of May 21, 2025, including from the protester.[4] AR, Tab 2, Decl. of Attorney Advisor at 1‑2.