United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Global Protection Group 

File: B-407221

Date: November 26, 2012

Micah Hoevelman for the protester.

Robert M. Elwell, Esq., Kristopher A. Fischer, Esq., and Martha E. Hulley, Esq., 

Department of the Navy, for the agency.

L. Dale Gipson, Esq., and Richard J. Marsden, Esq., Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne 

P.C., for AQuate Corp., an intervenor.

Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest contending that award decision was unreasonable because awardee’s price 

was unrealistically low and the awardee lacked relevant past performance is denied, 

where solicitation did not require a realism analysis for this fixed-price contract and 

record shows that awardee possessed relevant past performance that agency 

reasonably evaluated.

DECISION

Global Protection Group, Inc. (GPGI), of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of 

a contract to AQuate Corp., of Huntsville, Alabama, under request for proposals 

(RFP) N00033-12-R-2000, issued by the Department of the Navy for on-board 

security services for the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX-1) vessel. GPGI contends 

that the award to AQuate was unreasonable because the firm’s price was 

unrealistically low and the firm lacked relevant past performance.

We deny the protest.

The RFP sought a contractor to provide continuous security1

 1 The RFP required that security services be provided 24 hours, 7 days a week, for 

365 days a year, and that the contractor be able to sustain 58-day rotation 

schedules. RFP at 7. 

for the SBX-1 while 
Page 2 B-407221 

the vessel is in port and out at sea. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price 

contract with some reimbursable elements for a base period of up to 12 months, 

with four 1-year options. RFP at 31. The RFP stated that award would be made on 

a lowest price, technically-acceptable basis, considering technical, past 

performance, and price factors. Id. at 73. 

As relevant here, the RFP’s price factor stated that an offeror’s proposed price 

would be evaluated only to determine whether the price was fair and reasonable; a 

realism requirement was not included in the solicitation. Id. at 74. The past 

performance factor stated that the agency would consider the relevancy of each 

offeror’s past performance for the past 5 years and the offeror’s probability of 

meeting the solicitation requirements. Id. at 73. The RFP stated that the agency 

would consider various sources of past performance, including information available 

in databases, questionnaires, and interviews. Id. at 73-74. 

The agency received proposals from GPGI and AQuate in response to the RFP. 

Agency Memorandum of Law at 5. AQuate’s proposed price was $11,993,454.63, 

while GPGI’s proposed price was $21,265,031.72. Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, 

Source Selection Decision Document, at 1. Both proposals were rated acceptable 

under the technical and past performance factors. Id. The agency made award to 

AQuate because it submitted the lowest priced, technically-acceptable proposal, 

and this protest followed.

GPGI contends that the award to AQuate was unreasonable because, according to 

GPGI, AQuate’s price was unrealistically low and because the firm lacks relevant 

past performance. 

GPGI’s protest that AQuate’s price is too low fails to state a valid basis of protest. 

Where, as here, the award of a fixed-price contract is contemplated, an agency is 

not required to perform a realism analysis unless the solicitation so requires. SAIC 

Computer Systems, B-258431.2, Mar. 13, 1995, 95-1 CPD ¶ 156, at 11-12. In this 

regard, there is no prohibition against a procuring agency’s acceptance of low or 

below-cost offer under a solicitation for a fixed-priced contract. Wright Tool Co., 

B-276416, June 10, 1997, 97-1 CPD ¶ 210, at 3. Because the solicitation here did 

not require a realism analysis, GPGI’s complaint that the agency should have 

performed one is not cognizable.2 

 2 GPGI notes that Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.402(a)(3) identifies 

price evaluation techniques as “price analysis, cost analysis, and/or cost realism 

analysis to establish fair and reasonable price.” However, this provision merely lists 

available techniques and does not mandate the evaluation of realism in a fixed-price 

contract setting.
Page 3 B-407221 

GPGI next contends that AQuate lacked relevant past performance. However, the 

record does not support this contention. The agency was able to assess AQuate’s 

past performance from multiple past performance data sheets, questionnaire 

responses, and information available in government databases. AR, Tab 7, Past 

Performance Evaluation Team Report, at 4-6. Based on this information, 

the agency reasonably determined that AQuate performed contracts that were 

relevant to the solicitation and recent; that the firm’s performance on those contracts 

ranged from satisfactory to exceptional; and that the firm deserved an acceptable 

rating for past performance because the government had a reasonable expectation 

that AQuate would successfully perform the required effort. Id. at 6. We find the 

agency’s assessment of AQuate’s past performance to be a fair reflection of the 

record and to be in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. Although 

GPGI disagrees with the agency’s judgment, it has not shown that judgment to be 

unreasonable. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel