What a better Factor 1 was worth
- Awardee price
- $1,431,877,836
- Protester price
- $1,401,410,077
- Difference
- $30,467,759 · about 2.2% higher
- Outcome
- Protest denied · 2026-05-19
Evidence
The awardee's evaluated cost/price was $1,431,877,836; the protester's was $1,401,410,077. The award went to the higher price, by $30,467,759. GAO denied the protest, including the challenge to the best-value tradeoff.
Inference
With three factors tied, one step of rating on Factor 1 outweighed a $30 million price advantage. A page spent on Factor 1 earned more than a page spent anywhere else, and price did not recover the gap.
Still unknown
How the agency reasoned about the premium. The public decision summarizes the tradeoff; the source selection document is not public.
Proposed next step
Allocate pages by factor weight, heaviest to the scenario and its proof. Do not plan on price to recover a Factor 1 gap.
How this was found
- Published decision (GAO)Took both evaluated cost/price figures from the decision.$1,431,877,836 (awardee) and $1,401,410,077 (protester).
- Published decision (GAO)Read GAO's ruling on the best-value tradeoff challenge.Denied: the technical evaluation, the disparate-treatment claim and the tradeoff all upheld.
- Published decision (GAO)Set the price difference against the one rating difference.$30,467,759 for one step on Factor 1; nothing else separated them.
Inspect the source
GAO's decision gives both evaluated cost/price figures and denies the challenges to the technical evaluation, the allegations of disparate treatment, and the best-value tradeoff.