United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: TCMP Health Services LLC

File: B-407038; B-407038.2

Date: October 17, 2012

John R. Tolle, Esq., and Bryan R. King, Esq., Barton, Baker, Thomas & Tolle, LLP, 

for the protester

Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, for Aliron International, Inc., the 

intervenor

Erica S. Beardsley, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency.

A.J. Stephens, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

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

DIGEST

Protest is denied where the agency’s comparison and confirmation of the offerors’ 

proposed prices constituted a reasonable price realism analysis that was consistent 

with the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

TCMP Health Services, of Springfield, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to 

Aliron International, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9114F-11-R-0003, 

issued by the Department of the Army, for dental services. TCMP challenges the 

agency’s price realism analysis and the evaluation of Aliron’s proposal.

1

 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinitequantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year and four option years. The award was to 

be to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. Under the terms of the 

solicitation, the agency would evaluate the offers under three factors: technical, 

past and present performance, and price. The technical factor had six subfactors: 

 1 TCMP also protested the evaluation of Dental Health Management Services 

(DHMS), the offeror next in line for award.
Page 2 B-407038, B-407038.2 

contractor quality control plan, management capabilities, recruitment, retention, 

relevant corporate experience, and orientation program. Proposals were to be rated 

either acceptable or unacceptable under the technical and past and present 

performance factors.

The solicitation stated that the agency would calculate a total price by adding the 

base year and all option years for each offeror and compare these totals. Further, 

the solicitation stated: 

An offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best efforts to 

respond to this solicitation. Any inconsistency between promised 

performance and total proposed price shall be explained in the price 

proposal. For example, if a unique, innovative approach is the basis 

for an abnormally low cost estimate, the nature of these approaches 

and their impact on the total proposed price must be explained. If an 

offeror proposes to absorb a portion of costs, the offeror must explain 

the impact on the total proposed price. Any significant inconsistency, 

if left unexplained, will raise a fundamental question of the offeror’s 

understanding of the nature and scope of work required and the 

offeror’s ability to perform the contract within fiscal constraints and 

may render the proposal unacceptable. The threshold is met when 

the offeror’s price proposal demonstrates a realistic price for each 

function within the [Performance Work Statement] and a total 

proposed price estimate that reflects a clear understanding of all of the 

service requirements for the transition period, base period, and each 

of the four (4) one-year option periods.

RFP at 160–161.

The agency rated the proposals of Aliron, DHMS, and TCMP as acceptable for both 

factors. Aliron had the lowest total price for the contract’s 5-year term at 

$53,284,889, followed by DHMS at $53,689,022, and then TCMP at $55,072,126. 

Based on the foregoing, the agency made award to Aliron.

TCMP first argues that the agency failed to conduct the price realism analysis 

required by the solicitation for Aliron’s and DHMS’s proposals, which TCMP argues 

are insufficient to perform the required services. 

Where, as here, the award of a fixed-price contract is contemplated, a proposal’s 

price realism is not ordinarily considered since a fixed-price contract places the risk 

and responsibility for costs and resulting profit or loss on the contractor. However, 

an agency may provide in the solicitation for a price realism analysis for such 

purposes as measuring a firm’s understanding of the solicitation requirements, or to 

avoid the risk of poor performance from a contractor who is forced to provide goods

or services at little or no profit. Phacil Inc., B-406628, July 5, 2012, 2012 CPD 
Page 3 B-407038, B-407038.2 

¶ 202 at 4. The depth of the Army’s price realism analysis is a matter within the 

sound exercise of the agency’s discretion. Grove Resource Solutions, Inc., 

B-296228, B-296228.2, July 1, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 133 at 4-5. In reviewing protests 

challenging price realism evaluations, our focus is whether the agency acted 

reasonably and in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 

Here, the record shows that the agency conducted a reasonable price realism 

analysis. The Army compared the prices proposed by Aliron and DHMC to each 

other and the other proposed prices, to the historical price paid under the current 

contract, and to an independent government estimate. Agency Report, Tab 23,

at 22–23. In addition, the agency asked both Aliron and DHMC to confirm that their 

prices took into consideration all aspects of contractor employee benefits such as 

cost of living, housing, and U.S.-dollar-to-Euro differences. Agency Report, Tab 10,

at 1; Tab 12, at 2. The Army also requested that Aliron confirm that its price did not 

contain errors or mistakes and that Aliron was confident that it could perform the 

contract successfully. Agency Report, Tab 11, at 1. No inconsistencies between 

the offerors’ proposed prices and technical approaches were found. We find that 

the Army’s comparison and confirmation of the proposed prices comprised a 

reasonable price realism analysis that was consistent with the terms of the RFP.

TCMP nevertheless contends that Aliron and DHMS would not be able to meet the 

retention rates required by the RFP at their low proposed prices.2 TCMP has 

provided no support for this contention, except to note that Aliron’s (and DHMS’s) 

prices were lower than TCMP’s.3 Moreover, we note that Aliron’s and DHMS’s 

proposed prices are not consistently lower than TCMP’s proposed prices. For 

instance, TCMP’s hourly unit price for Dentist Call-Back Services (Germany) in the 

base year is $25.06, while Aliron’s is $55.96 and DHS’s is $95.00. Agency Report, 

Tab 7, at 6; Tab 8, at 3; Tab 20, at 6. Additionally, TCMP’s total proposed price for 

option years three and four was lower than either Aliron’s or DHMS’s total proposed 

prices for those years. Agency Report, Tab 23, at 20. TCMP’s contention that 

Aliron’s and DHMS’s lower prices would prevent them from meeting the required 

retention rate is not supported by a comparison of the offerors’ prices. 

The protester also contends that certain weaknesses identified by the agency in its 

review of the proposals of Aliron and DHMS should have led the Army to find their 

 2 The RFP requires the contactor to not allow the fill rate to drop below 95 percent 

for general dentists and hygienists and 90 percent for orthodontists and pediatric 

dentists. RFP at 98.

3 The Army did not request compensation plans detailing labor rates, fringe benefits, 

general and administrative rates and profit, and stated that if a detailed 

compensation plan was submitted, it would not be evaluated. RFP amend. 1 at 6. 

Therefore, these could not be considered in the price realism analysis. 
Page 4 B-407038, B-407038.2 

proposals unacceptable under the technical subfactors of recruitment and retention. 

Specifically, the agency found that Aliron’s proposed employee benefits were weak 

on OCONUS living environment packages under the recruitment subfactor and 

Aliron’s proposed efforts to retain current employees were weak on specifics. 

Agency Report, Tab 2, at 7. The agency identified time off and vacation policies as 

a weakness of DHMS’s proposal under the retention subfactor. 

The evaluation of an offeror’s proposal is a matter within the agency's discretion. 

National Gov't Servs., Inc., B–401063.2 et al., Jan. 30, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 59 at 5. 

In reviewing a protest against an agency’s evaluation of proposals, our Office will 

not reevaluate offerors’ proposals but instead will examine the record to determine 

whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated 

evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. See

Shumaker Trucking & Excavating Contractors, Inc., B–290732, Sept. 25, 2002, 

2002 CPD ¶ 169 at 3. A protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment 

in its determination of the relative merit of competing proposals does not establish 

that the evaluation was unreasonable. VT Griffin Servs., Inc., B–299869.2, Nov. 10, 

2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 219 at 4. 

In this case, although the agency identified weaknesses in both Aliron’s proposal

related to recruitment and retention and in DHMS’s proposal related to retention, the 

protester has not shown that the ratings of acceptable for these proposals was 

unreasonable or inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel