In response to a widely-publicized solicitation for a noncommercial item, a CO only received one responsible offer. The offer is a firm-fixed amount for $1,000,000, which was the same price for a similar item recently purchased by another agency under a contract that resulted from adequate price competition. Which of the following is correct?

In response to a widely-publicized solicitation for a noncommercial item, a CO only received one responsible offer. The offer is a firm-fixed amount for $1,000,000, which was the same price for a similar item recently purchased by another agency under a contract that resulted from adequate price competition. Which of the following is correct?

• A. The price is automatically fair and no audit is needed
• B. The proposed price is reasonable in comparison to a recent price for a similar item; therefore, certified cost and pricing data is not required
• C. Certified cost data is required because there was only one offer
• D. The government must resubmit the solicitation

Answer: (B)

The key idea is using price analysis to show reasonableness when there is evidence of competition or a recent comparable price. For noncommercial items, certified cost data are not required if you can reasonably conclude the price is fair based on other information. In this scenario, the firm-fixed price proposal is $1,000,000, a figure that matches the price paid recently by another agency for a similar item under a contract that resulted from adequate price competition. That prior competition provides a solid benchmark. Since you have a recent, competitive price for a like item, you can determine that the proposed price is reasonable without needing certified cost and pricing data. This is exactly the situation where price analysis—comparing the proposed price to known competitive prices—is sufficient to establish reasonableness. The other options don’t fit because: automatic fairness isn’t guaranteed just by a price match, and price analysis suffices without cost data when there’s adequate price competition or a recent comparable price; sole reliance on a single offer doesn’t automatically trigger cost data requirements if a reasonable benchmark exists; and there’s no mandate to resubmit the solicitation merely because of a single offer.

The key idea is using price analysis to show reasonableness when there is evidence of competition or a recent comparable price. For noncommercial items, certified cost data are not required if you can reasonably conclude the price is fair based on other information.

In this scenario, the firm-fixed price proposal is $1,000,000, a figure that matches the price paid recently by another agency for a similar item under a contract that resulted from adequate price competition. That prior competition provides a solid benchmark. Since you have a recent, competitive price for a like item, you can determine that the proposed price is reasonable without needing certified cost and pricing data. This is exactly the situation where price analysis—comparing the proposed price to known competitive prices—is sufficient to establish reasonableness.

The other options don’t fit because: automatic fairness isn’t guaranteed just by a price match, and price analysis suffices without cost data when there’s adequate price competition or a recent comparable price; sole reliance on a single offer doesn’t automatically trigger cost data requirements if a reasonable benchmark exists; and there’s no mandate to resubmit the solicitation merely because of a single offer.