In two post-award protests, the protesters argued the Air Force wrongly concluded that a pricing leak did not damage the integrity of the procurement. The Air Force accidentally sent every offeror’s total evaluated price to one protester. After realizing what it had done, the agency sent the prices to all offerors, thinking this would mitigate the harm of the disclosure. The awardee later cut its price by about $72 million but could not say how much the pricing disclosure had influenced it. The Air Force determined the price disclosure had not impacted the procurement. GAO sustained the protests, finding that the Air Force’s no-impact finding was not credible.
Reliance Test & Technology, B-424203.3; B-424203.4, and Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC, B-424203.2 (GAO, Oct. 13, 2026)
- Background: The Air Force sought operation and maintenance services for testing and training missions at Eglin Air Force Base. When it requested final proposals, the Air Force mistakenly sent one offeror, Reliance, a slide showing all three offerors’ total evaluated prices. The Air Force then sent the slide to every offeror and said they could use it. One offeror, STS, which had the highest initial price, cut its price by about $72 million. Offerors complained about the disclosure. The Air Force investigated. The Air Force found no prejudicial violation of the Procurement Integrity Act. The agency picked STS for award. Reliance and Fluor protested separately.
- Pricing Disclosure: Reliance and Fluor argued the Air Force unreasonably found that the leak did not harm the procurement’s integrity. GAO agreed. The Air Force said STS planned the price cuts before the leak. But STS itself said it had only picked which cost areas to trim before the slide arrived. It had not set the amounts. STS also told the Air Force it could not measure the slide’s impact. GAO found that the amounts drove the final price, and the Air Force never looked at when STS set them. The cuts, such as a lower award fee and a lower labor escalation rate, were business choices, not outside mandates. The Air Force’s own senior contracting official had said each offeror likely based some decisions on the slide. GAO called the Air Force’s no-impact finding hard to believe.
- Leveling the Playing Field: The Air Force argued that no one gained an edge because every offeror received the same information. It also said the slide was not useful because it showed no labor rates or detailed pricing. GAO rejected both points. The offerors were not on equal footing because the Air Force shared the slide after initial proposals were in. The Air Force never explained how a mid-procurement release leveled the playing field. A second disclosure also could not fix the first, especially once the Air Force committed to investigating its impact. And the slide was useful. The Air Force’s own statisticians reverse-engineered cost elements from it, and every offeror learned where it ranked on price.
- Technical Evaluation: Reliance also attacked the technical evaluation. It claimed the Air Force treated prior experience as pass/fail instead of weighing its extent. It also claimed the Air Force unfairly denied it a strength that STS received for its surge staffing approach. GAO denied both arguments. GAO does not re-score proposals. It checks whether the evaluation was reasonable and followed the solicitation. The record showed evaluators looked closely at each offeror’s experience, and a declaration explained why the offerors were equal. On the second point, a protester claiming unequal treatment must show the proposals were nearly identical. STS offered a distinct surge capability that Reliance’s proposal lacked.
- Timeliness: Fluor challenged how the Air Force evaluated professional employee compensation plans. GAO dismissed that argument as untimely. A protester must file within 10 days of when it knew its basis of protest. Fluor learned how the Air Force compared pay rates in a January 2026 debriefing but waited until after the June re-award. A new award decision after corrective action does not revive stale issues the corrective action did not touch.
- Recommended Remedy: GAO recommended that the Air Force reconsider the impact of the leak and implement effective fixes. Two examples: reevaluate the initial proposals from before the disclosure and make a new award decision, or cancel the solicitation and start over. GAO also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Reliance’s and Fluor’s reasonable protest costs, including attorneys’ fees.
Reliance Test & Technology, B-424203.3; B-424203.4: Reliance is represented by Scott M. McCaleb, Jon W. Burd, Cara L. Sizemore, and W. Benjamin Phillips, III of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, Strategic Test Solutions, LLC, is represented by Damien C. Specht, James A. Tucker, Brian E. Doll Jr., and Jillian I. Stern of Morrison & Foerster LLP, and Doug P. Hibshman, Evan C. Williams, and David O’Neil of Fox Rothschild LLP. The government is represented by Erika L. Whelan Retta, Sanique J. Balan, Joseph M. Cappola, and Martin C. O’Brien of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Michelle Litteken and April Y. Shields participated in the decision.
Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC, B-424203.2: Fluor is represented by Andrew E. Shipley, Seth H. Locke, Jarrod R. Carman, Jessica Shelnutt, and Preston H. Marquis of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP. The intervenor, Strategic Test Solutions, LLC, is represented by Damien C. Specht, James A. Tucker, Brian E. Doll Jr., and Jillian I. Stern of Morrison & Foerster LLP, and Doug P. Hibshman, Evan C. Williams, and David O’Neil of Fox Rothschild LLP. The government is represented by Erika L. Whelan Retta, Sanique J. Balan, Joseph M. Cappola, and Martin C. O’Brien of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Michelle Litteken and April Y. Shields participated in the decision.