GAO sustains protest of $1.9 billion Eglin test-range contract over price disclosure

By Garrett Sloane

WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office has sustained a bid protest over a roughly $1.9 billion Air Force test-range support contract at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. It found that the service’s conclusion that an accidental disclosure of competitors’ prices did no harm to the competition “is not supported by the record.”

The decision, dated Oct. 13 and released in redacted form, involves a contract the Air Force calls Eglin Operations and Maintenance Services II, or EOMS II. It covers operation and maintenance services supporting research, development, testing, evaluation and training missions at Eglin and other test locations. The solicitation, RFP No. FA248824RB003, was issued March 25, 2025. It called for a cost-plus-award-fee contract with up to 10 years of performance.

The protester is Reliance Test & Technology of Crestview, Fla., the incumbent, a joint venture of InDyne Inc. and Amentum. The awardee is Strategic Test Solutions LLC (STS) of Huntsville, Ala., a joint venture of AI Signal Research Inc. and Sierra Lobo Inc. GAO’s ruling faults the Air Force’s handling of the procurement. It makes no finding of misconduct by either company.

A slide sent to the wrong bidder

According to the decision, on Sept. 30, 2025, the contracting officer closed discussions and sent each of the three offerors briefing slides on its evaluation. The package sent to Reliance inadvertently included a pricing overview slide with agency-generated total evaluated cost roll-ups for all offerors. It showed Reliance with the lowest total evaluated price and STS with the highest.

Reliance notified the Air Force the next day. On Oct. 3, the contracting officer released the same slide to all three offerors and told them they “may consider this disclosure” in their final revisions. The contracting officer described this as the approach that would “ensure parity.”

In final revisions, STS cut its proposed cost/price by about $72 million and Reliance cut its own by about $9 million, GAO said. The Air Force awarded the contract to STS on Dec. 31, 2025.

Corrective action, then a second award

Reliance protested on Jan. 12, 2026. The Air Force took corrective action, and GAO dismissed that first protest (B-424203) on Feb. 3. The contracting officer then reinvestigated under the Procurement Integrity Act and found no “prejudicial violation.”

The decision describes a split in the Air Force’s own review. The senior contracting official disagreed in part on April 1, but did not find the procurement’s integrity compromised. On May 1, the head of the contracting activity concluded that a Procurement Integrity Act violation had occurred, but that the procurement’s integrity was not compromised.

On reevaluation, the Air Force put Reliance’s total evaluated price at $1,856,591,150 and STS’s at $1,868,802,857. These are evaluated prices for the full potential term, not money obligated. STS was rated Outstanding on technical sustainment and modernization and Reliance was rated Good. The source selection authority called the price difference “negligible” and again chose STS. Reliance was notified on June 15, 2026, and filed the present protest, which the GAO docket shows was filed Aug. 17.

What GAO found

GAO noted that STS had told the Air Force it was “impossible to quantify what impact the slide had” on its final price. Given that, GAO wrote, the agency’s conclusion that there was no impact “strains credulity.” The decision said the Air Force focused on when STS began identifying areas for cost cuts, but gave “no meaningful consideration” to when the company settled the amounts.

GAO also rejected the argument that the slide was not competitively useful. It said the Air Force’s own statisticians “were able to reverse engineer various cost elements from the disclosed information.” It also noted that the disclosure let each offeror know where it stood. GAO found that releasing the slide to everyone mid-procurement did not level the field, because “the offerors were not similarly situated when the information was disclosed.”

Reliance’s challenges to the technical evaluation were denied. GAO found the Air Force’s assessment of prior experience and of the technical sustainment subfactor reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.

The recommendation

GAO recommended that the Air Force reconsider the impact of the disclosure and put in place effective mitigation. Its examples include reevaluating the offerors’ initial, pre-disclosure proposals and making a new award decision on that basis, or canceling and resoliciting the requirement. GAO also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Reliance’s reasonable protest costs, including attorneys’ fees. GAO recommendations are not binding, but agencies generally follow them.

Wiley Rein LLP represented Reliance. Morrison & Foerster LLP and Fox Rothschild LLP represented STS as intervenor.

Request for comment

The Washington Inquisitor sought comment from the Government Accountability Office, Pentagon press operations (for the Department of the Air Force), Amentum, Sierra Lobo Inc. and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. This story will be updated with any responses.

Featured image: A U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II of the 40th Flight Test Squadron on a strafing run over a range near Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., Dec. 10, 2013. U.S. Air Force photo by Samuel King Jr., public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.