• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Matter of Mancon, LLC

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • July 7, 2020
  • Price RealismUnbalanced Pricing
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Mancon, LLC

Agency: Department of the Navy

Disposition: Protest Denied

Decided: May 12, 2020

Keywords: Unbalanced Pricing, Price Realism

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: 

Protest alleging that awardee’s pricing is unbalanced is dismissed where the protester fails to make the threshold showing that one or more of the awardee’s prices was overstated and where the agency reasonably determined that the risk of unbalanced pricing was low.

Summary of Facts 

Mancon, LLC protests the award of a contract to Noble Supply and Logistics, Inc. (Noble) under RFP No. N00189-18-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Navy for materials and logistical services. The RFP stated that the proposal would be evaluated under four factors, including price. The total evaluated price was to be calculated by adding the offeror’s proposed prices for: services for each year of performance; test market basket, comprising items commonly sold at the Navy stores in Crane; and the total material price, reflecting discounted commodity groups. In addition, offerors were to include any pricing catalogs they referenced. The RFP instructed that price was to be evaluated for reasonableness and the method of evaluation was “solely within the discretion of the contracting officer.” 

The agency received timely proposals from five offerors, including Noble and Mancon. Noble’s proposed price for services was lower than the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and significantly lower than all the other offerors. Noble’s proposed prices for commodities and discounted commodities were also lower than those of other offerors, and its overall test market basket price was significantly lower than the prices of all the other offerors. Mancon’s proposed price for services was higher than the IGE and similar to those proposed by other offerors. However, the solicitation did not provide for a price realism evaluation and under the fixed-price contract, the contracting officer (CO) noted that “the burden of risk is placed on the contractor to ensure that the requirements of the contract are met at the price proposed.” 

The CO then conducted an unbalanced pricing evaluation of Noble’s test market basket items by comparing the unit prices of each item identified in Noble’s test market basket to other offerors’ prices and commercially available pricing.  The majority of Noble’s items were lower than the average of the other offerors’ prices, while 8 items were priced higher. After conducting market research, the CO found comparable pricing for five of the 8 items, but was unable to find comparable pricing for the remaining 3. She concluded that “the overall risk of unbalanced pricing is low” and that Noble’s proposal provided the best value to the government. On January 14, 2020, the Navy awarded the contract to Noble and Mancon filed this protest.

Basis of Protest 

Mancon asserts that the Navy’s evaluation of Noble’s price proposal was unreasonable because the agency failed to adequately consider the risks posed by Noble’s unbalanced pricing scheme, and its unrealistically low prices. 

Protest Denied

GAO explained that “unbalanced pricing exists where the prices of one or more line items are significantly overstated or understated, despite an acceptable total evaluated price (typically achieved through underpricing of one or more other line items).” GAO noted that “to prevail on an allegation of unbalanced pricing, a protester must show that one or more prices in the allegedly unbalanced proposal are overstated; it is insufficient for a protester to show simply that some line item prices in the proposal are understated.” While both understated and overstated prices are relevant to the existence of unbalanced pricing, the primary risk is the overstatement of prices. Low prices are not improper, do not necessarily provide risk to the Government and do not, in themselves, establish unbalanced pricing.

GAO further explained that “if there is an unbalanced offer, the agency is required to consider the risks to the government that the unbalancing will result in unreasonably high prices during contract performance.”  GAO reviews agency determinations regarding unbalanced prices for reasonableness.

Here, while Mancon alleges that Noble’s prices for a few items in its catalog were outrageous, GAO found that the examples provided by Mancon do not concern Noble’s test basket items. The RFP established a price evaluation methodology based on the test market basket and the total material price. The prices in offerors’ catalogs were not part of the evaluation of price, so GAO concluded they cannot form the basis of an unbalanced pricing allegation.

Moreover, GAO found that while Mancon provided a few examples of Noble’s allegedly excessive prices, Mancon’s central allegation is that Noble’s prices were unrealistically low. GAO noted that this argument essentially is challenging the realism of Noble’s prices. However, the RFP did not provide for a price realism evaluation, and “absent a price realism provision, there is nothing objectionable in an offeror’s proposal of low, or even below-cost, prices.” Moreover, the Agency cannot conduct a price realism analysis if the RFP does not provide for this evaluation. 

Finally, GAO found that the CO identified and considered the minimal evidence of unbalanced pricing in Noble’s proposal. Specifically, she found that 3 of the 303 items identified in Noble’s test market basket were higher than items proposed by other offerors and concluded they represented an insignificant percentage of the test market basket and “are not expected to place the Government at significant risk of paying unbalanced prices.”

GAO concluded that the Navy satisfied the FAR’s requirements to conduct an unbalanced pricing analysis and reasonably determined that the risk posed to the government was not significant enough to render Noble’s proposal unacceptable. 

The GAO denied the protest on this basis.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Patronus Systems, Inc.

December 3, 2020

Matter of American Systems Group

June 26, 2020

ERIMAX, Inc., B-410682, January 22, 2015

March 17, 2015

FCN, Inc., B-408316; B-408316.2, August 19, 2013

September 25, 2013

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411