Often used loosely in government contracts services parlance, the impermissible bait and switch of key personnel is prohibited for adversely impacting contract performance and integrity of the procurement system. Therefore, prospective contractors can file post-award bid protests, challenging the awardee’s impermissible bait and switch of key personnel provided they can meet specifically defined elements. In such protests, the protestor essentially alleges that the awardee made misrepresentations to the government during the acquisition process by proposing personnel that it had no reasonable basis to expect to perform on the contract. The protest is sustained if the government is found to have relied on the awardee's misrepresentations by favorably evaluating the awardee's proposal, materially impacting the overall evaluation in the process. However, not all situations involving a switch of personnel upon contract award are considered an impermissible bait and switch, partly because whether the personnel identified in an offeror’s proposal will perform on the subsequently awarded contract is generally a matter concerning contract performance. Notably, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is a legislative agency that performs a quasi-judicial bid protest function, does not review matters concerning contract performance. Therefore, the GAO will only review bid protests involving an impermissible bait and switch of key personnel when the protestor alleges that the awardee received an evaluation advantage by proposing personnel that it had no reasonable basis to expect to perform on the contract.

Government officials often direct contractors to perform contract work in a specific manner not detailed in the contract. If such orders increase the scope of performance beyond the specifications of the contract, they may be construed as constructive changes. While such orders are generally given on the belief that they naturally fall within the scope of performance, they may nevertheless expand the scope of performance beyond the stated specifications. In such situations, contractors may be entitled to compensation for constructive change even if the accompanying government directive expressly states that it is not meant as a change order. Upon receipt of such directives, contractors must compare the new requirements with their existing contract specifications carefully and raise any scope creep issues promptly. Such a proactive approach may prove crucial in avoiding potential disputes and aid the contractor’s arguments in case of litigation.

Additional performance specifications not previously described in the contract may have the effect of increasing the scope of performance and add to costs incurred by the contractor. In such cases contractors may file a claim for increased costs. Such a claim was before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) in ASBCA No. 49648 pursuant to a contract for grounds maintenance services at the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. Under the contract, the contractor was required to furnish all labor, equipment, and materials for grounds maintenance supervision. While the contract specifications prohibited any contractor employees, vehicles, or equipment from infringing upon any government ceremonies or visitations, they did not expressly specify the distance contractor employees would have to maintain to comply with the no-infringement provision. Notably, the government had omitted provisions describing the exact no-infringement distances to maximize competition and avoid artificially high bids.

In procurement parlance, insourcing refers to an organizational decision to perform the work internally instead of procuring it from outside sources. As procuring entities, government agencies may, from time to time, decide to internally perform work that was previously contracted out via competitive procedures or otherwise choose to perform new work using agency employees and resources. While such occasions are relatively rare, contractors may need to challenge such government decisions to insource work. A potential example of such a scenario could involve a contractor challenging an agency’s decision not to issue a follow-on contract on which the contractor is the incumbent due to the agency’s decision to perform the work internally using government employees.

Protesting such insourcing decisions involves a situation in which choosing one protest forum over another may prove advantageous for prospective protestors. This is because when reviewing insourcing decisions, the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) bid protest jurisdiction may be somewhat limited compared to that of the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). For instance, while the GAO routinely reviews agency decisions to cancel procurements to determine whether the cancellations were reasonable, it has been reticent to review such cancellations under its bid protest function when the work under canceled procurement is to be performed by government employees. This is because the GAO, a part of the legislative branch of the government, considers such insourcing decisions to be within the purview of government discretion and a matter of executive branch policy.

It is common for individuals to switch roles between the public and private sectors in the federal contracts industry. Also known as the "revolving door" in industry parlance, this practice often leads to government officials leaving their positions to work for federal contractors or contractor employees obtaining roles in government agencies that regulate or award contracts to their former employers. As one can imagine, this practice can and often does lead to actual or perceived conflicts of interest at various stages of the procurement process. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 9.5 describes three types of organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) that may arise during the procurement lifecycle. These include biased ground rules, unequal access to non-public information, and impaired objectivity. Moreover, FAR § 3.1101 defines personal conflict of interest as a situation in which a covered employee has a financial interest, personal activity, or relationship that could impair the employee's ability to act impartially and in the government's best interest when performing under the contract.