Oready, LLC

Highlights

Oready, LLC, a small business of Las Vegas, Nevada, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140A2325Q0207, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education, for occupational therapy services. The protester contends that the solicitation's key personnel requirements are unduly restrictive of competition.

We deny the protest.

View Decision

Decision

Matter of: Oready, LLC

File: B-423758

Date: December 8, 2025

Michael Faro, for the protester.
William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency.
Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and April Y. Shields, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging the terms of the solicitation as unduly restrictive of competition is denied where the agency has demonstrated that the requirements for vendors to submit the resumes of key personnel and associated letters of commitment are reasonably necessary to meet the agency's needs.

DECISION

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFQ, issued on July 17, 2025, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation parts 12 and 13, sought quotations for occupational therapy services at the agency-operated Mariano Lake Community School in Crownpoint, New Mexico. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 1.[1] Specifically, the solicitation anticipated the award of a contract for two positions--an occupational therapist and an occupational therapy assistant--to provide services from August 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026. Id. at 3.

The RFQ contemplated the award of a contract on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering four factors: (1) qualifications and capability, (2) key personnel, (3) past performance, and (4) price. Id. at 40-41. As relevant here, under the key personnel factor, the RFQ required vendors to provide “a resume, proof of applicable education, certifications, licensure, and direct contact information of key personnel.” Id. at 39. The solicitation required that these resumes “clearly demonstrat[e] qualifications and experience working in a school setting with special education programs and [individualized education programs].” Id. The solicitation advised vendors that if they were not currently employing the key personnel identified in their quotations, “a written statement signed by the individual must accompany the resume indicating the individual's commitment to join your firm as an employee in the event of an award.” Id.

Prior to the July 23, 2025, due date for receipt of quotations, Oready filed this protest with our Office.

DISCUSSION

The protester argues that the solicitation's key personnel requirements are unduly restrictive of competition.[2] Specifically, Oready asserts that requiring vendors to submit key personnel resumes and accompanying letters of commitment is too difficult for small businesses and skews competition in favor of larger firms that can afford to recruit and retain specialized staff without the assurance that they will receive an award. Protest at 2. The protester contends that the agency should have first shown that a less restrictive approach--like requiring firms to submit a “detailed, post-award recruitment plan[]”--would not meet the agency's needs. Comments at 2. Oready also asserts that the agency has not justified its key personnel requirements. Protest at 3.

The agency responds that its key personnel requirements are reasonably necessary to meet its needs. MOL at 3. Specifically, the agency argues that the requirements to provide key personnel resumes and “letter[s] of commitment” are essential to the agency's needs because “[w]ithout identifying key personnel, the [a]gency would have no way of evaluating key personnel qualifications or ensuring contractors can provide licensed/certified staff upon award.” Id. at 4. The agency asserts that without letters of commitment, Mariano Lake Community School risks not having staff in place at the start of the school year, causing delays that affect student well-being and increase administrative and temporary staffing costs. Id. at 4-5. The Bureau specifically points to its own experience with performance issues, compliance risks, and long service delays when vendors were not required to submit letters of commitment for proposed staff. Contracting Officer's Statement at 4.

Where a protester challenges a specification or requirement as unduly restrictive of competition, the procuring agency has the responsibility of establishing that the specification or requirement is reasonably necessary to meet the agency's needs. Coulson Aviation (USA), Inc., B-414566, July 12, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 242 at 3. We examine the adequacy of the agency's justification for a restrictive solicitation provision to ensure that it is rational and can withstand logical scrutiny. Antico Cantiere Del Legno Giovanni Aprea Di Cataldo S.R.L., B-415549, Dec. 6, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 376 at 3. Further, the determination of a contracting agency's needs and the best method for accommodating them is a matter primarily within the agency's discretion. See Gallup, Inc., B-410126, Sept. 25, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 280 at 5.

We find that the Bureau has articulated a reasonable basis for including the key personnel requirements in the solicitation; namely, to ensure that the occupational therapist and the occupational therapy assistant are properly certified, vetted, and in place by the beginning of the school year in order to maximize student well-being and minimize performance issues. Although Oready argues the key personnel requirements will be difficult to meet, it has failed to show the agency's rationale for its key personnel requirements are unreasonable. See, e.g., Maritime Inst. Inc., B-407254, Nov. 20, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 325 at 3 (denying protest challenging a solicitation requirement that offerors submit resumes and signed letters of intent for their key personnel).

While Oready also argues that the agency should have shown that it considered other, less restrictive approaches, the protester's disagreement with the agency in this regard does not provide a basis to sustain the protest. See Louis Berger Servs., Inc., B‑410024, Oct. 10, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 303 at 3 (“A protester's disagreement with the agency's judgment concerning the agency's needs and how to accommodate them does not show that the agency's judgment is unreasonable”). An agency is not required to document its consideration of less restrictive alternatives to satisfy a protester challenging a solicitation requirement as unduly restrictive; rather, it requires that the agency establish the requirement as reasonably necessary to meet its needs. See Coulson Aviation (USA), Inc., supra. The agency has done so here by explaining that the solicitation requirements to provide key personnel resumes and letters of commitment are essential to ensuring that staff are in place at the start of the school year and consequently preventing delays that affect student well-being and increase administrative costs.[3] MOL at 4-5.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

[1] The page numbers referenced in this decision are the Adobe PDF page numbers in the documents submitted.

[2] In pursuing this protest, Oready has made various arguments that are in addition to, or variations of, the core argument discussed here. For example, the protester argues that the key personnel requirements at issue here are unreasonable in light of the agency's corrective action in a different procurement where Oready protested a similar key personnel requirement. Protest at 3-4. The agency responds that corrective action taken in a different procurement does not affect this procurement. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 9. We agree. Agency actions taken in a related procurement are immaterial to the challenges raised in other individual protests since each procurement stands on its own and an agency's actions during one acquisition have no bearing on its actions in another acquisition. BioneX, LLC, B-423630, July 25, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 164 at 4-5. In sum, we have considered all of Oready's arguments and find no basis to sustain its protest.

[3] While Oready suggests that firms submit a “detailed, post‑award recruitment plan[]” in place of the agency's key personnel requirements, the protester has not established that its preferred approach would meet the agency's needs. See Comments at 2.