United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Technology Advancement Group, Inc.

File: B-406982; B-406982.2; B-406982.3

Date: October 12, 2012

William A. Shook, Esq., for the protester.

J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., and Rebecca B. Jacobsen, Esq., Halloran & Sage 

LLP, for Trimble Navigation Limited, an intervenor.

Maj. Michael C. Evans, United States Marine Corps, for the agency.

Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest of an agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposed fixed prices is 

denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accord with the solicitation’s 

evaluation criteria.

2. Protest that awardee’s price proposal was unbalanced is denied where the

agency reasonably determined that the awardee’s pricing was not unbalanced and 

did not, in any event, pose unacceptable risk to the government.

DECISION

Technology Advancement Group, Inc. (TAG), of Dulles, Virginia, protests the award 

of a contract to Trimble Federal Navigations Solutions Group, of Dayton, Ohio, 

under request for proposals (RFP) No. M67854-12-R-6001, issued by the United 

States Marine Corps for 20 Global Positioning System-Survey (GPS-S) systems. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for 20 GPS-S systems and 

associated support, such as logistics and maintenance, repair and/or replacement 

of the systems, and spare parts. These systems are to replace older GPS-S 

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-406982 et al. 

systems that have been in use by Corps artillery surveyors since the 1990s and are 

obsolete.1

 RFP, Statement of Work (SOW), at 11.

Offerors were informed that award would be made on a lowest-price, technicallyacceptable basis considering the following factors: technical, management, past 

performance, and price. RFP at 67-70. With respect to price, the RFP instructed 

offerors to submit fixed prices for 11 contract line items (CLINs): CLINs 1-5 for the 

GPS-S units and related services and materials, optional CLINs 6-7 for additional 

GPS-S units and spare parts, and optional CLINs 8-11 for contractor logistics 

support for a base year and 4 option years. Id. at 2-10. 

With regard to the spare parts CLINs, offerors were to provide a list of 

recommended spare parts that might be ordered to cover the complete GPS-S 

system, with a separate price for each orderable item. See id. at 14, 64. The 

contractor logistics support was required to include:

shipping to and from the vendor’s facility as necessary, logistics 

and maintenance support, as well as repair and/or replacement for 

all delivered GPS-S Systems, components, and spare parts.

Id. at 18. 

Offerors were instructed to provide the necessary price information with embedded 

formulas as required to support all CLINs, id. at 62, but were not provided a pricing 

schedule or other form breaking out the various elements that would go into the 

offeror’s unit price for CLINs 8-11. Offerors were informed that prices would be 

evaluated for completeness, unbalancing, and reasonableness and that an offeror’s 

total evaluated price would be “the sum of the ‘Total Amount’ identified for all CLINs 

(including any option CLINs).” Id. at 69-70.

The Corps received proposals from TAG and Trimble, which were found to be 

technically unacceptable. Written discussions were conducted, and final proposal 

revisions (FPRs) received. The firms’ FPRs were found to be technically 

acceptable.2

 See Agency Report (AR), Tab 15, Source Selection Evaluation Board 

Final Evaluation Report, at 57.

 1 Artillery surveyors provide “a common grid for all fire support and targeting assets 

within the prescribed command.” SOW at 1.

2 Price and price-related issues were not discussed with either offeror. See AR, 

Tab 13, TAG’s FPR; Tab 14, Trimble’s FPR. 
Page 3 B-406982 et al. 

The firms’ proposed prices were also evaluated. Following FPRs, Trimble’s total 

evaluated price was $4,868,744,3 and TAG’s total evaluated price was $5,351,990. 

The agency found both firms’ proposed prices to be complete, balanced, and 

reasonable. AR, Tab 16, Final Price Evaluation Report, at 2.

Trimble was selected for award, and this protest followed a debriefing.

DISCUSSION

TAG raises a number of challenges to the agency’s evaluation of Trimble’s 

proposed price. TAG complains that Trimble failed to provide for spare parts in 

Trimble’s proposed prices for CLINs 8-11, as required by the RFP, and that the 

awardee’s offer therefore “failed to conform to a material requirement of the 

Solicitation,” and could not reasonably be accepted.4 Supp. Protest at 2. In this

regard, TAG argues that the agency was required to perform a “specific cost 

analysis,” rather than a price analysis, which TAG contends would have revealed 

that Trimble failed to include the cost of spare parts in its proposed prices for these 

CLINs. 

The agency responds that Trimble provided fixed prices for CLINs 8-11, which 

includes providing spare parts. In this regard, the Corps states that Trimble did not 

take exception to providing spare parts, and in fact recognized the obligation to 

provide spare parts under these CLINs in several places in its management 

proposal. Supp. AR at 3. The Corps also disagrees that it was required under the 

RFP to perform a cost analysis to determine the reasonableness of the offerors’ 

proposed fixed prices.

Our Office reviews challenges to an agency’s evaluation of proposals only to 

determine whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the solicitation’s 

evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Marine 

Animal Prods. Int'l, Inc., B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 16 at 5. A 

protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment is not sufficient to 

establish that an agency acted unreasonably. Entz Aerodyne, Inc.

 3 In its FPR, Trimble reduced its initial proposed price of [deleted] to $4,868,752. 

The agency adjusted Trimble’s revised price to $4,868,744 to correct a calculation 

error. See AR, Tab 16, Final Price Evaluation Report, at 2-3.

, B-293531, 

Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 70 at 3.

4 Initially, TAG protested the agency unreasonably considered the protester’s 

proposed prices for spare parts under CLINs 8-11, arguing that the RFP either did 

not provide for spare parts under these CLINs or was latently ambiguous. The 

Corps responded that the RFP unambiguously required offerors to provide spare 

parts under these CLINs. TAG did not further pursue this complaint.
Page 4 B-406982 et al. 

Here, the record supports the Corps’ determination that Trimble had affirmatively 

committed to providing spare parts under CLINs 8-11, as required by the RFP.5 

Specifically, Trimble in its management proposal stated that it understood that spare 

parts would be provided as part of contractor logistics support under these CLINs:

Trimble understands that Contractor Logistics Support 

encompasses, under this contract, CONUS [continental United 

States] shipping to and from Trimble’s facility as necessary, 

logistics and maintenance support, as well as repair and/or 

replacement for all delivered GPS-S Replacement Systems, 

components and spare parts as required.

See AR, Tab 8, Trimble’s Initial Management Proposal, at 16-17 (emphasis 

added).6

 Trimble also provided a total fixed price for the CLINs 8-11, and, although 

it did not specifically identify spare parts, it took no exception to the requirement to 

provide spare parts at its proposed fixed price. See AR, Tab 9, Trimble’s Initial 

Price Proposal, at 25-29. 

We also disagree with TAG that the Corps was required to perform a detailed cost 

analysis under the RFP. Although TAG argues that the agency was required to 

separately identify offerors’ costs under each CLIN and analyze them, see Supp. 

Protest at 2, 11-12, the RFP provided the agency would use one or more of the 

methods identified in FAR §§ 15.305, 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine whether an 

offeror’s proposed price was reasonable.7

 5 In response to the protest, Trimble acknowledges that its fixed prices under CLINs 

8-11 include spare parts, and that it is obligated to provide spare parts as needed to 

respond to these CLINs at the prices proposed. Intervenor’s Supp. Comments at 3.

 Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 

Section 15.404-1(b)(1) states that “[p]rice analysis is the process of examining and 

evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and 

proposed profit,” and 15.404-1(b)(2) identifies a number of price analysis techniques 

and procedures that the agency may use to ensure a fair and reasonable price, 

including comparison of offerors’ prices and comparison to an independent 

government cost estimate. 

6 The agency’s discussions with Trimble did not address contractor logistic support 

under CLINs 8-11, and Trimble’s FPR did not further address these CLINs, other 

than to restate its total fixed prices for the CLINs.

7 We recognize that the RFP refers to both price and cost proposals. For example, 

as TAG notes, the RFP states the agency would assess the “adequacy of the cost 

proposal.” See RFP at 70. Notwithstanding these references to assessing costs, 

the solicitation, read as a whole, provided only for a price analysis to assess the 

reasonableness of offerors’ proposed fixed prices.
Page 5 B-406982 et al. 

Here, the contracting officer determined that both firms’ price proposals were 

complete because they included fixed prices for each CLIN and explained how the 

offeror would meet each of the SOW and performance specifications requirements. 

CO’s Affidavit of August 30, 2012, at 4. She also states that she compared offers to 

the independent government estimate and to each other, and concluded that the 

prices were reasonable, given the competition here.8 While TAG may disagree with 

the agency’s assessment that Trimble’s proposed fixed price is reasonable, it 

provides no basis to question the agency’s judgment in this regard.

TAG also complains that Trimble’s prices are unbalanced, noting that Trimble’s 

prices for CLINs 3-5 (training and evaluation materials) are [deleted] higher than 

TAG’s. TAG contends that Trimble’s proposal should have been rejected on that 

basis.9

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the 

price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated. 

FAR § 15.404-1(g)(1); Triumvirate Envtl., Inc., B-406809, Sept. 5, 2012, 2012 CPD 

¶ 244 at 5. Unbalanced pricing may increase risk to the government, but agencies 

cannot reject an offer solely because it is unbalanced. Thus, where an unbalanced 

offer is received, the agency is required to consider the risks to the government 

associated with the unbalanced pricing in making the award decision, including the 

risk that the unbalancing will result in unreasonably high prices for contract 

performance. FAR § 15.404-1(g)(2); Cherokee Painting LLC, B-311020.3, Jan. 14, 

2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 18 at 3. Our Office will review for reasonableness both an 

agency’s determination as to whether a firm’s prices are unbalanced, and an 

agency’s determination as to whether a firm’s unbalanced prices pose an 

unacceptable risk. Semont Travel, Inc., B-291179, Nov. 20, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 200 

at 3.

Here, the contracting officer reviewed the offerors’ CLIN pricing and recognized that 

Trimble’s prices for the three CLINs were [deleted] higher than TAG’s. She found, 

however, that both firms’ pricing reflected their technical approaches. CO’s Affidavit 

 8 The government estimate does not include individual CLIN price breakdowns. 

CO’s Affidavit of August 30, 2012, at 4. 

9 TAG also complains that Trimble’s prices for optional CLINS 8-11 are [deleted] 

lower than TAG’s prices for these CLINs. Low prices (even below-cost prices), 

however, are not improper and do not establish (or create the risk inherent in) 

unbalanced pricing. General Dynamics-Ordnance & Tactical Sys., B-401658, B401658.2, Oct. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 217 at 5; Diversified Capital, Inc., B293105.4, B-293105.8, Nov. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 242 at 2 n.1; Islandwide 

Landscaping, Inc., B-293018, Dec. 24, 2003, 2004 CPD ¶ 9 at 3.
Page 6 B-406982 et al. 

of August 30, 2012, at 5. Thus, for example, with respect to Trimble’s higher total 

price for CLIN 3 (for training material and services), Trimble’s price reflected its 

more robust approach, that is, Trimble’s offer proposed to have these services 

performed by more senior and qualified personnel than did TAG’s offer. In short, 

she found Trimble’s price reasonable and not overstated. Although TAG disagrees 

with this judgment, pointing to its own lower pricing for CLINs 3-5, a comparison of 

the protester’s pricing to the awardee’s prices, without more, is insufficient to show 

that the awardee’s prices are unbalanced. See General Dynamics--Ordnance & 

Tactical Sys., supra, at 5.

Although the CO concluded that Trimble’s prices were not unbalanced, she also 

considered whether the pricing presented any risk to the agency and concluded that 

it did not. In this regard, she noted that the agency intended to execute all of the 

CLINs, since it required all 20 GPS-S units and the associated maintenance and 

training. Supp. AR at 9. 

The protest is denied.10

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel

 10 TAG also protested initially that the agency improperly evaluated its price 

proposal by including an amount—[deleted]—that TAG had submitted as its price 

for “an optional offer of enhanced performance [that] was not intended to be 

included in the overall price evaluation as to the lowest price of a technically 

acceptable system.” Protest at 3. TAG argued that the two offers were not 

evaluated on a common basis, since this amount was included in TAG’s total price. 

Although this argument appears to be inconsistent with the RFP’s price evaluation 

criterion that informed offerors that their evaluated price would be the sum of all 

CLINs, including options, see RFP at 69-70, we need not resolve this issue because 

the record shows no reasonable possibility that TAG was prejudiced in any event. 

That is, even if we accept TAG’s argument that its price should be reduced by 

[deleted] TAG’s total price would still be higher than Trimble’s.