top of page
  • Writer's pictureR.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Price Realism Determination Not Required on Fixed-Price Contract

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) recently reiterated its prior holdings that unless there is a provision in the solicitation providing for a price realism analysis (or states that low prices will result in rejection of a proposal), agencies are neither required nor permitted to conduct a price realism analysis in awarding a fixed-price contract.


The Forest Service issued a request for quotations (“RFQ”) for establishment of multiple blanket purchase agreements for wildland firefighter services, The RFQ contemplated fixed price contracts, and did not require a explicit price realism provision, nor did it include a provision that allowed the agency to reject offer if they were priced too low. Instead, the RFQ said this:


An analysis will be conducted on the unit price proposed to determine the demonstrated understanding of the level of effort and equipment needed to successfully perform these services. Fair and Reasonableness will be determined by comparing current competition, historical data, and the Government Estimate. Rates must be determined fair and reasonable to be considered for an agreement.


The Forest Service did not conduct any price realism analysis. Instead, it determined if prices were reasonable using established 2020 rates from the Oregon Department of Forestry.


In denying the protest, the GAO noted that the purpose of a price realism analysis is to determine if prices are too low such that there is a risk of poor performance or to confirm a contractor’s understanding of the requirements of the solicitation, citing FAR 15.505-1(d). The GAO noted that in the absence of an express price realism provision, the GAO will only conclude that a solicitation contemplates a price realism analysis where that solicitation explicitly states that the agency will review prices to determine whether they are so low that they reflect a lack of technical understanding, and where the proposal or quote can be rejected for offering low prices. The GAO concluded that “[a]bsent a solicitation providing for a price realism analysis, agencies are neither required nor permitted to conduct one in awarding a fixed price contract.”


Takeaway. The GAO will only insist that an agency conduct a price realism analysis on a fixed-price contract where the solicitation contains an express price realism provision. Even where a solicitation states that the agency will examine whether the price reflects an understanding of the solicitation requirements (but does not require a price realism analysis), the GAO will only require a price realism analysis where the solicitation states that the agency can reject a proposal for offering low prices.


For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes

10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Asserting Duress in Signing a Modification

Sand Point Services, LLC brought two claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, both involving modifications.  Sand Point Servs., LLC, ASBCA Nos. 61819, 61820, January 4, 2024.  The f

Requirements Contracts: Words of Exclusivity

The Federal Circuit recently clarified that an agency’s contract may still contain requisite language to make it a requirements contract, even if the contract does not include the required Federal Acq

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2024 Richard D. Lieberman

bottom of page