INDUS Technology, Inc. (N0025325R3000)

B-424002,B-424002.2 Feb 17, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights INDUS Technology, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0025325R3000, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for maintenance, engineering, and industrial operations support services. The protester, which is the incumbent contractor, contends that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal for purportedly failing to demonstrate, as required by the solicitation, that it would provide at least 30 percent of the proposed total estimated amount of the task order to small business concerns. We deny the protest. View Decision 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. Decision Matter of: INDUS Technology, Inc. File: B-424002; B-424002.2 Date: February 17, 2026 Richard B. Oliver, Esq., J. Matthew Carter, Esq., and Dinesh C. Dharmadasa, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Christopher Lybeck, Esq., Laura Whitten, Esq., and Trenton Bowen, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's elimination of protester's proposal from the competition is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the protester's proposal failed to demonstrate how it would provide at least 30 percent of the total proposed value of the task order to small business concerns. 2. Protest challenging the remaining portions of the agency's evaluation are dismissed where the protester fails to show competitive prejudice. DECISION INDUS Technology, Inc., of San Diego, California, protests the elimination of its proposal from the competition under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0025325R3000, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for maintenance, engineering, and industrial operations support services. The protester, which is the incumbent contractor, contends that the agency unreasonably eliminated its proposal for purportedly failing to demonstrate, as required by the solicitation, that it would provide at least 30 percent of the proposed total estimated amount of the task order to small business concerns. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on June 24, 2025, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 16, to holders of the Navy's SeaPort Next Generation indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) multiple award contracts. Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1‑2. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a base year and four, 1-year option periods, for support services at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division in Keyport, Washington. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 3‑5; COS/MOL at 2.[1] The due date for proposals, as amended, was July 31, 2025.[2] COS/MOL at 2. The solicitation provided for evaluation on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) cost; and (4) contract documentation. RFP at 108. The technical factor was more important than past performance, and when combined, the technical factor and past performance were significantly more important than cost.[3] Id. at 108. The agency would evaluate the contract documentation factor on a pass/fail basis. Id. at 110. As relevant here, in evaluating cost, the solicitation provided that the agency would perform a cost realism analysis to determine whether an offeror's proposed cost elements reflected a clear understanding of the requirements and were consistent with the technical proposal. Id. at 110. Under this factor, offerors were to provide a cost narrative, along with the following two spreadsheets, provided as attachments to the solicitation: section B pricing spreadsheet and cost proposal spreadsheet. Id. at 104. For the cost proposal narrative, offerors were to provide a narrative that substantiated the reasonableness and realism of all proposed costs. Id. The cost proposal narrative also was to address specific cost areas, such as subcontractors, labor hours, direct labor rates, and maximum pass-through and fee rates.[4] Id. at 104‑105. Id. at 5. The solicitation further provided that the maximum pass-through rate charged against any non-ODC (other direct cost) contract line item numbers (CLINs) was not to exceed 8 percent. Id. Any proposed rate that exceeded the maximum rate requirements could be found unacceptable and thus, render the proposal ineligible for award. Id.