A price evaluation was not arbitrary and capricious, according to the Court of Federal Claims, because the solicitation did not require the offerors' contractually binding prices to be evaluated for realism. The protester challenged contract awards for two geographic regions in a recompeted fixed-price procurement for post-disaster debris removal. To address concerns about the awardees' "radical drop" in pricing, the government requested offerors to provide an updated sample task order price but did not require offerors to use their proposed line item pricing, which was contractually binding. The protester's contention the awardees' revised prices were "too low" challenged the government's price realism analysis.