GAO Reports Top Three Bid Protest Arguments of 2025

By Brett W. Johnson and Lilly M. Geiler

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained just 14% of the 1,676 bid protests that it decided last year.¹ The most common reasons it sustained protests in 2025 were (1) unreasonable technical evaluations, (2) unreasonable cost or price evaluations, and (3) unreasonable rejections of proposals. As government contractors evaluate award decisions going forward, it is important to appreciate the various grounds for potential protests and the success rate to determine the economic benefits of challenging (or defending) such awards.

1. Unreasonable Technical Evaluation

One of the prevalent bases for sustaining bid protests in 2025 was agencies’ unreasonable and inconsistent technical evaluations. For example, in emissary LLC, an agency credited an awardee for proposing a staff approach for the required 11-month period even though the awardee had only proposed staffing for nine months.² The agency admitted the error, but it still argued the GAO should overlook the agency’s errant finding because it did not sway its selection decision. The GAO sustained the protest because the evaluation was inconsistent with the terms of the proposal, and, contrary to the agency’s argument, the record indicated the staffing finding had actually played a role in the selection decision.

emissary LLC reaffirms the bedrock principle that agencies must evaluate proposals in a manner consistent with the terms of the solicitation and equally amongst the offerors. For example, if two offers provide the same product or credentials in response to a solicitation criterion, the agency must treat those submissions equally and provide the same point award for that criterion. Obviously, the agency may award points differently for implementation. Additionally, it highlights the importance of agencies documenting evaluations and retaining those materials to show how selection decisions were made.

2. Unreasonable Cost or Price Evaluation

The GAO also sustained numerous bid protests due to unreasonable cost or price evaluations. For example, in KBR Services, LLC; Vectrus Systems Corporation, an agency attempted to cure the awardee’s omission of its subcontractor’s pricing information in its proposal by developing a risk-adjusted price using other information in the awardee’s proposal.³ The GAO found the agency’s attempt to create the missing information unreasonable, explaining the proper course of action would have been to reopen discussions and accept a revised proposal. Accordingly, the GAO sustained the protest.

This case shows the importance of ensuring that a proposal actually addresses all items as required in a solicitation. Further, if a proposal is missing information, it is not acceptable for the agency to simply furnish the information itself. As such, offerors should review proposals to confirm that the actual questions or requests are being addressed. Due to space constraints, offerors should consider cross-referencing to other sections when necessary to take advantage of responses that are addressed in other sections. The offeror cannot rely on the agency doing such cross-referencing to piece together a complete offer for evaluation.

3. Unreasonable Rejection of Proposal

The GAO commonly sustained bid protests where agencies had unreasonably rejected proposals. For example, in SynergisT JV, LLC, an agency rejected the protester’s quotation because it provided labor categories under certain special item numbers, even though the solicitation did not expressly limit vendors from doing so.⁴ The agency argued the limitation was implied in the solicitation. The GAO disagreed and sustained the protest, finding a provision specifically limiting proposals to a category of special item numbers would have been required to justify the agency’s rejection of the protester’s proposal.

SynergisT JV, LLC serves as a reminder that agencies must clearly articulate requirements in solicitations. Federal contractors may also quote goods or services listed on their Federal Supply Schedule contract unless the solicitation specifically and expressly prohibits them from doing so. Again, as government contract opportunities are becoming more competitive, offerors should ensure that they have a qualified team available to respond to the opportunity and ensure that the specific requests for information as to the goods or services at issue are addressed in any bid. If an agency overlooks the specificity requirement and an award is provided to an offeror that is not as responsive or the offeror is not able to actually perform the requirement, then a protest at the agency level or GAO should be considered.

***

Understanding prevalent bases for bid protests is crucial for contractors who respond to solicitations and government agencies seeking to mitigate protest risk. Familiarity with these legal principles is key for bringing successful bid protests and defending against them, especially because bid protests are often subject to short deadlines. This information is also important for state contractors and agencies because many states and municipal agencies look to federal law as persuasive in deciding bid protests.