As GAO decisions accumulated, there were numerous articles in law journals pointing out that the decisions were often inconsistent and difficult to apply. A lawyer at the GAO named Dan Gordon suggested a different approach in 1994. Rather than the traditional analysis of "mathematically and materially" unbalanced price, he recommended using a "risk" approach where if risk was acceptable, the offer could be accepted.

The rewrite of FAR Part 15 section, effective October 1997, adopted Gordon’s approach. The old concepts of material and mathematical unbalance are gone and now the critical issue is an assessment of risk. The new FAR 15.404-1 regulation still defines unbalanced price as one where one or more contract line items are significantly overstated or understated. When a bid is unbalanced the contracting officer must consider the risks by determining whether the award "will result in paying unreasonably higher prices for contract performance." If the CO determines the risk is "unacceptable" then the offer can be rejected. Gone from the revised regulation is any mention of "material" unbalancing or the possibility an unbalanced bid can constitute an advanced payment.

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}