Sessions Opens Subcommittee Hearing on Bid Protest Reform

WASHINGTON—Subcommittee on Government Operations Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) delivered opening remarks at today’s hearing on “Bid Protest Reform: Understanding the Problem.” In his opening statement, Subcommittee Chairman Sessions highlighted concerns over government contractors exploiting loopholes by filing frivolous protests to manipulate and delay the bid process. Subcommittee Chairman Sessions also emphasized the need for Congress to understand how problems in the bid protest system arise and analyze solutions that will close loopholes and prevent system abuse. 

Below are Subcommittee Chairman Sessions’s prepared remarks:

This is important today that we have gathered together and we have three important witnesses who will help guide this committee on what I believe should be a regular process as part of the success to ensure that the American people put trust in the federal government to spend their taxpayer dollars wisely.

And we need to listen to professionals who deal with these issues to provide us status. 

In fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent about $755 billion dollars on goods and services through the contracting process. 

And while there is significant focus on what federal agencies bought, we need to also focus also on that process on how they do so. 

Part of the contracting process includes the mechanism, known as a bid protest, that serves to ensure government procurements are competitive and fair. 

I believe this is an important goal, so it is incumbent on this Subcommittee, this Subcommittee, Government Operations, to review the bid protest process as part of our oversight. 

And indeed, as we have looked at this process, we have learned there are concerns that must be reviewed to determine whether changes to the system are in order. 

Critics of the current process say that bid protests have become engrained in the solicitation and award process, with companies factoring in a protest as soon as a contract is announced.

Other critics say that contracting officers are more concerned with creating the best paper record to defend their decisions rather than achieving the best result for the government and U.S. Taxpayers. 

Supporters of the process who want reforms say that delays are due to bureaucratic red tape at the procuring agency—either the agency is too slow to develop requirements or too slow to implement corrective actions.

While there are potentially a number of problems in need of solution, it appears to me that the process may be over-utilized. 

This makes it difficult for agencies to get the goods or services they need, reducing their ability to timely deliver on their missions.

I am aware of a variety of ideas which need to be considered. 

So, is it too easy to protest? Can we maintain fairness while requiring more stringent criteria be met before a complaint can be filed?

Are there too many bites at the apple for those who protest? Time frames are involved in that. If a party does not like the result they get, are they bogging down the system by relitigating they get what they want? 

Are there additional steps that could be taken before a solicitation is issued which could prevent protests once an award is made? 

Should we adopt a “loser pays” approach, and how would this work? It seems to me this – or other solutions – could reduce and limit “serial protestors” who lodge a protest because they have nothing to lose. That is why we are here today.

We are here today to ask three people who were deeply involved in this process and have a vast background who were able to help guide not only the Subcommittee, but I believe members of this Congress, to where we understand more about the process that we ask questions about. 

As we examine bid protests, as is the case with so many of the issues, Ranking Member Mfume and I want to investigate. We need to ensure that we have the right information to make good decisions, that with your guidance, will help us.  

And I am concerned we do not have those available to us today.  

There are a lot of stories.

Perhaps there’s even a viewpoint with an unsolicited amount of creative information from those who are involved in that process, who have opinions,

But these insights are all important, and if we begin that story today with people who are in the know who can guide us, it’s helpful. 

The Trump Administration is committed to reforms, and here in this Subcommittee, we are going to listen to that venue. We believe the vehicle to do that is by an open hearing one that is not just matched with Republicans and Democrats but goof government people, and that is what we believe we have on the side of Republicans and Democrats, but good government people. 

And that is what we believe we have on the side of the Republicans and our friends that are Democrats who are here today who serve on this Government Operations Subcommittee. 

We want to make sure that we are approaching problems thoughtfully. So today we’ll hear from distinguished subject matter experts who are in the field who understand the problem, who know that ultimately, we want to make sure that we are reviewing this to be thoughtful about what we are doing.