United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: SoniTech NDT

File: B-407115

Date: November 2, 2012

Charles R. Lucy, Esq., and Victoria L. Strohmeyer, Esq., Holland & Hart LLP, for the 

protester.

Richard G. Olona, Esq., Olona & Associates, P.C., for Sonic Inspection Corporation, 

an intervenor.

Lucie J. McDonald, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. In a negotiated procurement for a fixed-price purchase order, protest that the 

successful vendor’s price is unrealistically low is denied where the solicitation did not 

provide for the evaluation of price realism.

2. Protest objecting to the agency’s evaluation of the successful vendor’s past 

performance is denied, where the agency considered the vendor’s history of relevant 

past performance and the positive comments made by the vendor’s references 

regarding its past performance.

DECISION

SoniTech NDT, of Broomfield, Colorado, protests the issuance of a purchase order 

to Sonic Inspection Corporation, of Castle Rock, Colorado, under request for 

quotations (RFQ) No. N40085-12-M-5108, issued by the Department of the Navy for 

testing of fire protection piping systems. The protester objects to the agency’s 

evaluation of the awardee’s quotation and selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFQ, issued as a small business set-aside under the commercial acquisition 

procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, provided for the 

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.
Page 2 B-407115 

issuance of a fixed-price order for the non-destructive testing of fire protection piping 

systems using ultrasonic localized guided wave technology within buildings occupied 

by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and located at the Naval 

Support Activity in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. RFQ at 2-3. Vendors were 

informed that the work concerned five DISA occupied buildings but did not include 

space within these buildings that was occupied by other tenants. In this regard, the 

RFP identified the amount of square footage occupied by DISA in each building. 

RFQ amend. 1, at 2.

Vendors were informed that selection of the successful vendor would be made on a 

best-value basis, considering past performance and price, which were stated to be 

approximately equal in value. RFQ at 52. With regard to past performance, vendors 

were instructed to provide information that demonstrated customer satisfaction for 

recent (performed within the last 3 years) and relevant contracts performed for 

federal agencies or commercial customers.1 Id. at 50. The RFQ provided that the 

agency would evaluate the vendor’s past performance as substantial confidence, 

satisfactory confidence, limited confidence, no confidence, or unknown confidence 

(neutral).2

 RFQ at 53.

With regard to price, the RFQ requested that vendors provide a total, lump-sum 

price for all of the requested services. RFQ at 2. The RFQ also provided that if the 

lowest-priced quotation was found to have a substantial confidence performance 

rating, that quotation would be deemed to represent the best value to the agency. 

Id. at 53.

The agency received quotations from only SoniTech and Sonic. Sonic submitted the 

lowest-priced quotation ($70,800), and SoniTech submitted the second-lowest 

priced quotation ($180,000). Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, SoniTech Quotation, at 2; 

Tab 6, Sonic Quotation, at 1. The contracting officer evaluated the firms’ past 

performance information, and obtained several completed past performance 

questionnaires for each vendor. The contracting officer assessed both firms’ past 

performance as substantial confidence. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3.

The contracting officer also assessed the reasonableness of Sonic’s low price by 

comparing Sonic’s $70,800 price with the revised independent government estimate 

 1 Relevant past performance was defined as non-destructive testing of fire protection 

piping systems using ultrasonic localized guided wave technology. RFQ at 52.

2 Substantial confidence reflected the government’s high expectation, based upon a 

vendor’s recent and relevant past performance, that the vendor would successfully 

perform the required effort. RFQ at 53.
Page 3 B-407115 

(IGE) of $61,392.60.3 The contracting officer concluded that, although Sonic’s price 

was approximately 12 percent higher than the revised IGE, it was within an 

acceptable range and reasonable. AR, Tab 11, Price Reasonableness 

Determination. 

The purchase order was issued to Sonic as the firm with the lowest-priced quotation 

that received a substantial confidence past performance assessment. This protest 

followed a debriefing.

DISCUSSION

The protester raises a number of challenges to the agency’s evaluation of Sonic’s 

price and past performance, none of which we find to have merit.4

Price Evaluation

The protester first complains that the agency failed to assess the realism of Sonic’s

low price. The RFQ, however, did not provide for a price realism analysis. Where, 

as here, the award of a fixed-price contract or order is contemplated, a quotation’s 

price realism is not ordinarily considered, since a fixed-price contract or order places 

the risk and responsibility for contract costs and resulting profit or loss on the 

contractor.5 Beyel Bros,, Inc.

 3 The initial IGE was $99,881.20, which was based in part upon information received 

from SoniTech. See AR at 3; Tab 8, Declaration of Engineering Technician at 1-2. 

After receiving quotations, the agency reviewed the IGE and determined that it was 

erroneously based upon all of the square footage of the five buildings and not just 

the space occupied by DISA. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2. The IGE was 

then revised to $61,392.60.

, B-406640, B-406640.2, July 18, 2012, 2012 CPD 

4 SoniTech also argued that Sonic’s quotation was submitted late and with 

inaccurate information. Protest at 6. The agency specifically responded to this 

allegation in its report. SoniTech abandoned this ground of protest, when it did not 

address the agency’s response in its comments. See Cedar Electric, Inc., 

B-402284.2, Mar. 19, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 79 at 3 n.4.

5 In this regard, SoniTech challenges the adequacy of the IGE and the agency’s 

revision of the IGE after receipt of quotations. Protester’s Comments at 5. These 

arguments also provide no basis to sustain the protest, as they all concern 

SoniTech’s belief that Sonic’s price is unrealistically low. We also note that agencies 

are permitted to change IGEs after receipt of quotations or proposals where a review 

of the quotations or proposals shows that the initial IGE was incorrect in its 

assessment of the level of effort necessary to perform the requirement, or in its 

prediction of fair and reasonable prices as compared to the actual pricing disclosed 

(continued...)
Page 4 B-407115 

¶ 211 at 4. A price realism evaluation is not required where a solicitation for a 

fixed-price contract does not include a requirement for such an evaluation. Id.

The protester also argues that the agency’s price reasonableness analysis was 

flawed, because Sonic’s own pricing data allegedly reflects that its historical pricing 

for this project was substantially higher than its price quotation here and more in line 

with SoniTech’s higher price. The purpose of a price reasonableness review in a 

competition for the award of a fixed-price contract or order, however, is to determine 

whether the prices offered are too high, as opposed to too low. Sterling Servs., Inc., 

B-291625, B-291626, Jan. 14, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 26 at 3; WorldTravelService, 

B-284155.3, Mar. 26, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 68 at 4 n.2. SoniTech’s argument that 

Sonic’s price is too low concerns price realism and not reasonableness. See C.L. 

Price & Assocs., Inc., B-403476.2, Jan. 7, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 16 at 3; SDV 

Solutions, Inc., B-402309, Feb. 1, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 48 at 4. As noted above, such 

an analysis was not required here.

The protester also complains that the agency’s affirmative determination of Sonic’s 

responsibility is unreasonable, because Sonic allegedly will not be able to perform 

the RFQ work within the time required at its low price.6

 Protest at 6. We generally 

do not review affirmative determinations of responsibility, except in circumstances 

not demonstrated here. 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c) (2012). Moreover, because Sonic is a 

small business, any issue concerning the awardee’s responsibility is a matter for the 

Small Business Administration under its certificate of competency program. 

Past Performance Evaluation

Finally, the protester argues that Sonic’s past performance should not have received 

a substantial confidence rating, because Sonic had not performed a government 

project of the size and scope contemplated by the statement of work within the past 

3 years. Protest at 6; Protester’s Comments at 9.

 

(...continued)

by competition. Resource Ltd., B-406492, B-406492.2, June 6, 2012, 2012 CPD 

¶ 195 at 5.

6 SoniTech also argues that Sonic does not have the requisite integrity to be found 

responsible because Sonic allegedly posted confidential drawings from a past 

project to its publicly available website in violation of contract terms. Protester’s 

Comments at 9. This argument, which was not raised in SoniTech’s protest, is 

untimely. Our Bid Protest Regulations do not contemplate the unwarranted 

piecemeal presentation or development of protest issues. See 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a) 

(2012); AINS, Inc., B-405902.3, May 31, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 180 at 6 n.12.
Page 5 B-407115 

In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s past performance evaluation, we will 

examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable 

and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and 

regulations. Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting, Inc., B-285244, July 18, 2000, 2000 

CPD ¶ 132 at 4. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation 

provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the evaluator’s judgments. See

Citywide Managing Servs. Of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, 

B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11.

Here, the record does not support SoniTech’s complaint. First, contrary to the 

protester’s belief, the RFQ did not provide that the agency would only consider past 

performance of federal government contracts but stated that the agency would 

consider past performance of relevant work for federal agencies and commercial 

customers. See RFQ at 50. Next, the contracting officer found that Sonic had 

identified seven prior projects for its relevant experience, one of which had a 

significantly higher value than the RFQ work here or any of the experience identified 

by SoniTech. The contracting officer received responses to two past performance 

questionnaires for Sonic’s work as a prime contractor, which stated that Sonic’s 

performance was excellent and good, respectively. The contracting officer also 

received a verbal response for work that Sonic performed as a subcontractor, which 

indicated that Sonic’s performance was good. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 3. 

The contracting officer concluded from this record that Sonic’s past performance 

merited a substantial confidence rating, which we find was consistent with the RFQ 

criteria. Although SoniTech disagrees with this judgment, this does not demonstrate 

that the agency’s assessment of the merits of Sonic’s past performance was 

unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel