This year, the federal government has seen an unprecedented level of scrutiny aimed at cutting waste and inefficiencies. While trimming waste and striving for greater efficiency are admirable pursuits, it is important not to take an overly broad approach and overlook the intent behind federal processes that may seem burdensome. Federal procurement is designed to serve the public interest, not private advantage. The bid protest process, set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 33.1, plays a vital role in maintaining that interest. Too often, protests are criticized as costly or obstructive. In reality, our current system is one of the most effective mechanisms for ensuring accountability, fairness, and efficiency in the expenditure of taxpayer funds. This blog explores several benefits of the protest process and serves as a reminder of why this system is in place as the FAR undergoes various re-writes.
A Check and Balance on Government Power
This country was founded on the basis that an unaccountable government creates an unequal balance of power, and so our federal regulations contain checks on that power to ensure the government serves the public’s interest, not its own. At its core, the bid protest process is a check and balance on the government agencies and officials responsible for spending taxpayer dollars. Bid protests allow contractors, and thereby the taxpayers themselves, to question a solicitation, an award, or other aspects of a procurement believed to violate law or regulation. This right is essential in a system where the government holds extraordinary discretion and authority over billions of dollars in contracts.
By allowing interested parties (usually disappointed offerors) to initiate an independent review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), protests create a strong incentive for agencies to follow procurement rules and help deter misconduct, political favoritism, and arbitrary and capricious actions. A protest gives GAO or the COFC access to the procurement record, and although this is normally done under a protective order, this disclosure prevents agency officials from proceeding with unreasonable procurement actions. In this sense, the protest process acts as an anti-corruption safeguard, promoting lawful and ethical contracting practices.
Protecting Taxpayer Money
One of the strongest arguments in favor of the protest process is its role in safeguarding taxpayer money. Some argue that the government is wasting money by not conducting all procurements on a lowest price, technically acceptable basis. But this ignores the fact that making award to the cheapest offer often is not the best use of taxpayer dollars and ultimately may lead to higher costs to address deficient performance. This is where the best value tradeoff process under FAR Part 15 comes into play, allowing the government to pay a justifiable premium for better quality supplies and services. By permitting offerors to challenge evaluation results, agencies are put on notice of important aspects of a proposal that may have been overlooked or misunderstood. The agency can then take corrective action and establish a clear record that taxpayer money is being put towards the best value.
In the end, this corrective function prevents waste, fraud, and abuse—protecting the integrity of government spending. Each successful protest that uncovers an error represents not a failure of the system, but evidence that the system is working as intended by identifying and correcting mistakes before they become costly. Additionally, the process weeds out flawed awards, clarifies requirements, and reinforces the importance of compliance, which ensures that awards are made under fair and transparent circumstances while also maximizing the taxpayer dollar.
Improving Future Procurement Quality and Efficiency
FAR 1.102 identifies integrity, fairness, and openness as cornerstones of the Federal Acquisition System. Bid protests help ensure that principle is upheld. Notably, this portion of the FAR has not been affected by the FAR overhaul, signaling the continued importance of this principle. While protests may temporarily delay contract performance, they ultimately make the system more efficient and reinforce the government’s duty to conduct open and equitable competitions. Offerors are more likely to participate in a system where they have recourse if the proper procedures are not adhered to, and increased competition ultimately benefits the public by delivering innovative approaches and driving down prices.
Agencies often use the protest process as an opportunity to self-correct by taking corrective action in the face of a flawed solicitation or award. This mechanism improves future procurements by refining evaluation criteria, clarifying solicitation language, and reinforcing compliance with procurement laws. It also offers a much faster resolution than waiting for a decision on the merits. The lessons learned from one protest often ripple across an agency’s contracting operations, leading to fewer disputes and more robust award justifications in the future.
Decisions issued by the GAO and the COFC provide invaluable interpretive guidance to agencies and contractors alike. Protests do not result in a directed award to a particular contractor, which is a common misconception, but protest decisions clarify how the FAR should be applied in practice. Over time, this body of precedent enhances predictability and consistency across the procurement landscape. None of this insight would be available without the bid protest process.
A Vital Whistleblower Function
Bid protests also serve a whistleblower-like function. Disappointed bidders are often the only parties with sufficient insight and expertise to detect irregularities in the procurement process or incorrect interpretations of specialized technical data. By allowing these concerns to be aired before a neutral adjudicator, the government benefits from this layer of oversight. This helps identify weaknesses in agency procedures and ensures compliance with procurement law, without relying solely on internal audits or oversight bodies.
This is further improved by permitting an awardee to intervene. An intervener’s participation ensures that the reviewing body hears from all interested parties—the protester, the government, and the awardee—before reaching a decision. Allowing an awardee to participate in the defense of the government’s actions prevents one-sided outcomes and enhances the legitimacy of the result.
A Relatively Fast and Efficient Remedy
Compared to traditional litigation, the bid protest process is remarkably efficient. GAO must issue a decision within 100 calendar days after the protest is filed. Even at the COFC, most protests are resolved well within a year. For most contractors, this is a manageable and predictable timeline, especially when contrasted with the years-long process often required to resolve complex federal lawsuits.
Many agencies even account for this timeframe in their procurement planning, sometimes establishing contract start dates several months after award to accommodate the possibility of a protest. This practice reflects not inefficiency, but institutional acceptance of the protest process as a normal, necessary safeguard.
Protests Are the Exception, Not the Rule
Critics sometimes suggest that bid protests are overused, but the data tells a different story. Each year, tens of thousands of contracts are awarded across the federal government, yet only a small fraction are protested. GAO publishes a report each year on its own data, and the information from 2024 shows that only 1,740 protests were filed last year.[1] While the COFC does not publish the same type of information, the Court generally hears far fewer bid protests than GAO. This may sound like a large number until it is compared to the 108,899 awards made in 2024.[2] In other words, even a conservative estimate of 3,000 protests to account for the COFC represents only 2.75% of all contract opportunities being protested.
This disparity shows that most procurements proceed smoothly, and when protests are filed, they typically reflect genuine concerns rather than frivolous delay tactics. This is borne out by the fact that, on average, more than half of protests at GAO result in some form of relief either as a result of voluntary agency corrective action or GAO sustaining the protest.[3] The limited number of protests relative to the total number of awards shows the seriousness and careful consideration with which contractors approach this process.
Conclusion
The bid protest process under FAR Subpart 33 is not an obstacle to efficient procurement—it is an essential safeguard that strengthens the integrity of the Federal Acquisition System. By holding agencies accountable, encouraging fair competition, and protecting taxpayer resources, the protest mechanism fosters trust between the government and its contracting partners. It also enhances procurement quality and provides ongoing guidance for both industry and agencies. Every system has its flaws, but some level of oversight is required when billions of taxpayer dollars are on the line. Each of the points above must be taken into consideration while the FAR undergoes a close review. Increasing the difficulty of bringing a bid protest will likely harm many, if not all, of the benefits discussed above and could lead to an imbalance between the above benefits and the wide procurement power agencies already possess.
PilieroMazza attorneys have substantial experience filing and defending protests. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact Tony Franco, Katie Burrows, Jackie Unger, Ryan Boonstra, or another member of the Firm’s Bid Protests or Government Contracts practice groups.
_______________
Looking for practical insights on gaining a competitive advantage through a deeper understanding of the government’s compliance requirements? Check out PilieroMazza’s podcasts “GovCon Live!” and “Clocking in with PilieroMazza.”
[1] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-900611.
[2] https://govspend.com/blog/federal-contract-awards-hit-773-68b-in-fy24-small-businesses-see-4b-increase/.
[3] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-900611 (identifying an effectiveness rate, i.e., the rate of the protester obtaining relief from the agency, between 48% and 57% for the past five fiscal years).
Related Attorneys
