The winning proposal finished between two rivals
Two October 13 GAO decisions document an Air Force pricing disclosure during a test-and-training-range procurement at Eglin Air Force Base. The agency first disclosed a pricing slide to one bidder, then shared it with all competitors. The eventual awardee, STS, later reduced its proposal by about $72 million.
Final evaluated prices were $1.8566 billion for Reliance, $1.8688 billion for STS and $1.8951 billion for Fluor. STS finished $12.2 million, or 0.658%, above Reliance and $26.3 million below Fluor.
| Offeror | Amount |
|---|---|
| Reliance Test & Technology | $1,856,591,150 |
| STS, awardee | $1,868,802,857 |
| Fluor Federal Solutions | $1,895,124,888 |
The $72 million cut was 2.74 times the winning margin over Fluor
STS’s approximate $72 million reduction was 2.74 times its final $26,322,031 advantage over Fluor. Reliance reduced its proposal by about $9 million; Fluor did not change its price.
That comparison shows why competitive-impact analysis mattered. It does not prove the disclosure caused STS’s entire reduction, determined the award or produced taxpayer savings. STS said it contemplated reductions before disclosure but had not finalized their amount.
GAO found the no-impact conclusion unsupported
GAO concluded the Air Force had not adequately supported its determination that the disclosure caused no competitive harm. It recommended reconsidering the effect and taking mitigation steps, potentially evaluating proposals from before the disclosure or resoliciting.
Technical merit mattered in the best-value decision, and GAO denied Reliance’s separate technical challenges. The records therefore do not support describing Reliance as the rightful winner merely because it submitted the lowest evaluated price.
What remains unresolved
The decisions provide recommendations, not proof the Air Force has completed corrective action. Proposal values are not paid contract totals, verified losses or realized savings.
This newsroom combined the price tables and reduction figures from both decisions to measure the margins. The central finding is a documented integrity problem and a scale comparison—not fraud, unsafe performance or a canceled contract.
Sources and further reading
GAO Fluor decision B-424203.2 ↗