1 / 1
Competitive prejudice
A credible protest theory connects three elements: (1) the governing or procurement rule, (2) contemporaneous record evidence the agency departed from it — for example an unstated evaluation criterion, unequal , or a misevaluation that overlooked proposal content — and (3) competitive prejudice showing a reasonable possibility that, but for the error, the protester would have had a substantial chance of award. Agency-level protests under FAR 33.103 similarly expect a detailed statement of legal and factual grounds, including copies of relevant documents. Disagreement with agency judgment alone, a list of unfavorable comments, or proof of a harmless clerical mistake is not a theory.
Watch for
Don’t treat “the agency was wrong” as complete without prejudice. Filing to punish a loss is not a business case — name the rule allegedly violated, point to the evaluation record (not post-hoc speculation), and state how correction could change the competitive outcome.