July 22, 2025
Subscribe and listen to the Fed Gov Today Podcast anytime on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at FedGovToday.com.
Chris Hamm, CEO of FIN Acquisitions and former director of GSA’s FEDSIM, joins the podcast to share his perspective on the bid protest reform provision in the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—and why he believes it won’t deliver the change federal contracting needs.
The provision, Section 816, aims to discourage frivolous protests by allowing the government to claw back profits earned by
Hamm explains that the real issue lies in how government funds work. Appropriated money must be spent within specific limits: time, purpose, and amount. If an agency spends money during a stay and then tries to recover it months later, that money is likely to have already expired. “There’s no motivation for the agency to fight to get the money back,” he says. Meanwhile, the incumbent contractor has every incentive to fight to keep it—sometimes millions of dollars. That dynamic, Hamm warns, creates the same incentive structure that currently encourages protests.
He also points out the complexity in determining profit. The proposed clawback approach assumes it’s easy to calculate how much a company earns during a stay, but Hamm says that’s not realistic. “It would only work on cost contracts where the fees are explicit,” he explains. “And that’s not where all the protests are.” A simpler solution, he says, would be to set a fixed penalty or percentage—not something based on estimated profits.
Hamm offers a more effective approach: treat protests like NFL challenges. In football, coaches get a limited number of challenges. If they’re right, they earn more; if they’re wrong, they lose the right to challenge again. A system like that, Hamm believes, would limit unnecessary protests without the administrative burden of proving whether a protest is frivolous.
He also touches on why some contractors protest in the first place. While many protest to delay a competitor’s contract, others file simply because they weren’t given enough information about why they lost. Hamm notes that the government has made significant progress in improving debriefings, often providing detailed award justifications. However, the shift toward written debriefs has removed the human element, sometimes making the process feel colder and more frustrating.
Lastly, Hamm discusses broader procurement reform efforts, including the FAR rewrite. He says better communication between agencies and vendors—especially early in the requirements process—would reduce bidding costs and lower the chances of a protest. “Right now, it’s a guessing game,” Hamm says, urging for more dialogue and collaboration upfront.
You can read Chris’ piece here