The company has a location in Denver and has opened another company in Dallas with the same ownership. The plan wants to offer a higher match formula to Denver and a lower match formula to Dallas. It is my understanding this is a benefits, right and features issue. Would we have to do rate group testing for each office? Average benefits on the whole? Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks!

If it's clear that one location has a better match rate than the other one, then you only need to do benefit, right or feature testing on the location with the better match rate. If you start with Treas. Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-4 and work through the various cross-references, the BRF test ends up being the nondiscriminatory classification test. There is no average benefit percentage test required for BRF testing.

brf rules are found in 1-4-1(a)(4)-4
in particular you need to pass 'current availability'
you get a free ride on average benefits % so that leaves you simply needing to have a ratio percentage (each plan, no rate group testing) being greater than the safe harbor % based on the NHCE concentration %.

I read Tom's answer to be the consistent with mine -- we just had a different way of explaining the same thing.

I concur. my response was not a reply to his. basically we responded at the same time, but by the time I remembered to hit 'add reply' his marvelous and wonderful thoughtful answer was already there.
I am just slow.