United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Maritime Institute Inc.

File: B-407254

Date: November 20, 2012

Harry G. Laragione for the protester.

Sebastian B. Vaneria, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Requirement in a solicitation for logistics training for mariners, that proposals 

include the resumes and signed employment letters of intent for key personnel, is 

unobjectionable, where the agency has provided a reasonable explanation for the 

requirement.

DECISION

Maritime Institute Inc. protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) 

No. N00033-12-R-8012, issued by the Department of the Navy, for logistics training 

services for civilian mariners. 

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, provides for the award of a 

fixed-price contract for a base period of 1 year with two 1-year option periods. In 

accordance with the terms of the solicitation, the contractor will be required to 

provide “an effective, accessible, responsive and high-quality training program to 

maintain and increase the professional knowledge and skills of civil-service 

merchant mariners.” RFP at 10. This includes the provision of “educational and 

related services, including course instruction and administration.” Id.

The solicitation states that award will be made to the responsible small business 

offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value to the government 

based upon the evaluation factors of technical, past performance, and price. The 

solicitation adds that in determining which proposal represents the best value, the 

results under the technical factor will be considered more important than past 
Page 2 B-407254 

performance, and that the technical and past performance factors combined will be 

considered significantly more important than price. The solicitation further advises 

offerors that the technical factor is comprised of the following subfactors: 

(1) staffing plan and key personnel experience, and (2) technical and management 

approach. Offerors are informed that evaluation of proposals under the staffing plan 

and key personnel experience subfactor will include the consideration of the “overall 

qualifications, education, and experience of key personnel assigned to the contract.” 

RFP at 51.

In order to facilitate the evaluation of the offerors’ key personnel, the solicitation 

provides minimum qualifications for 13 “Key Personnel” positions, such as Program 

Manager, Certified Executive Chief Instructor, and Instructor, and requires that the 

proposals include information demonstrating that the proposed key personnel meet 

the minimum qualifications set forth in the RFP. RFP at 18-19, 49. Offerors are 

advised that proposals are to include resumes for all proposed key personnel, and 

“a signed employment letter of intent” from the individuals proposed as key 

personnel who are “not currently employed by the Offeror.” RFP at 49.

The protester objects to the RFP’s requirement that offerors submit signed letters of 

intent from, and the resumes of, individuals proposed as key personnel. The 

protester notes here that “[w]hen we reached out to the current incumbent staff, we 

received emails stating they were unable to provide letters of intent or resumes as it 

would be in direct violation of their employment contracts.” The protester continues 

by explaining that “[w]hile prospective bidders could recruit staff who met the 

qualifications of the solicitation, they would not be qualified in the courses currently 

taught, making them less desirable than the instructors employed by the incumbent 

contractor.” The protester concludes that “[w]ithout the ability to acquire letters of 

intent from the current staff, prospective bidders [will be] unable to demonstrate best 

value,” and “ask[s] that the requirement for resumes and letters of intent be 

removed from the solicitation requirements until 30 days after award or that the 

incumbent contractor be directed to waive their employment agreements with 

incumbent staff with respect to resumes and letters of intent.” Protest at 1-2. 

A contracting agency has the discretion to determine its needs and the best method 

to accommodate them. Ocean Servs., LLC, B-292511.2, Nov. 6, 2003, 2003 CPD 

¶ 206 at 3. In preparing a solicitation, a contracting agency is required to specify its 

needs in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition, and may include 

restrictive requirements only to the extent they are necessary to satisfy the agency’s 

legitimate needs. 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(1)(B) (2006); Ocean Servs., LLC, supra. 

Where a protester challenges a specification as unduly restrictive, the procuring 

agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification is reasonably 

necessary to meet its needs. The adequacy of the agency’s justification is 

ascertained through examining whether the agency’s explanation is reasonable, 

that is, whether the explanation can withstand logical scrutiny. Ocean Servs., LLC, 

supra.
Page 3 B-407254 

The agency explains that the evaluation of proposed key personnel “is a major 

component of the [t]echnical evaluation” for these instructional services, and that 

the “requirement for resumes provides the Agency with a means for evaluating 

whether offerors have proposed key personnel who meet or exceed the minimum 

requirements outlined in the solicitation.” Agency Report (AR) at 5-6. The agency 

adds that the “requirement for signed employment letters of intent allows the 

Agency to assess the likelihood that proposed key personnel will actually agree to 

work for [the] offeror,” and that without that requirement, the agency would have 

“limited assurance that it will actually receive what is offered.” Id. at 6-7.

Although the protester asserts that the requirement that it submit resumes and 

signed letters of intent for its proposed key personnel will be difficult to meet and will 

provide the incumbent contractor with a competitive advantage, it has not shown 

that the agency’s rationale for the requirements--to ensure that proposed key 

personnel, such as the instructors, are qualified, and then to ensure that the key 

personnel on whom the evaluation is based are in fact available for contract 

performance--is unreasonable.1 Atlantic Coast Contracting, Inc., B-291893, 

Apr. 24, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 87 at 2. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 1 The protester also argues that the requirement is inconsistent with the policy of 

Exec. Order No. 13495, Displacement of Qualified Workers Under Service 

Contracts (Jan. 30, 2009). We dismiss this aspect of the protest. Compliance with 

an executive order is a matter concerning executive branch policy, which we do not 

review under the circumstances here. 901 North Fifth Street, LLC, B-404997,

B-404977.2, July 22, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 152 at 8.