The GAO sustained a bid protest regarding the award of a $3 billion U.S. Navy contract for warfighter field operations customer support services because, where the awardee proposed inconsistent labor rates in two different tables, the Navy failed to calculate the offeror’s total evaluated price using the higher rates as required by the solicitation. General Dynamics Information Technology, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-299873, Sept.19, 2007. For the “B.2” table, offerors were instructed to include fully burdened hourly labor rates for various specified labor categories at specified locations, which were to be included in the Navy’s calculation of total evaluated price. For the “B.4” table, offerors were instructed to include fully burdened labor rates for all labor categories at all potential locations, which were not to be included in the Navy’s calculation of total evaluated price. Although the B.4 table rates would not be included in the calculation of total evaluated price, the solicitation stated that the two tables would be compared to ensure consistency and that, in the event of an inconsistency, the higher of the proposed rates would be included in the calculation. The awardee’s proposed rates for approximately 40 labor categories were higher on its B.4 table than on its B.2 table and, in addition, the two tables contained inconsistent escalation factors. The Navy, however, failed to use the higher rates in its calculation of the awardee’s total evaluated price. As a result, the Navy’s calculation of the awardee’s total evaluated price was understated by $97 million.