GAO Sustain Rate

I have no idea why the sustained rate went up by so much..

I have no reason to think that the increase in the sustain rate was in any way related to Better Buying Power or the goal of seeking to improve tradecraft.

2. By "accountability" do you mean disciplinary action? I don't know if anyone was disciplined, but there is certainly the potential for disciplinary action for egregious unprofessionalism, mismanagement, or misconduct.

I have no idea why the number of sustained protests more than doubled for FY 2016 (139) over FY 2015 (68).  However, the top 2 of the most prevalent reasons that GAO lists must have helped:

1. unreasonable technical evaluation climbed to the number 1 issue in FY 2016 from number 5 in FY 2015.  This type of protest must have climbed significantly since the overall protest numbers doubled and it grew as a problem.
2. unreasonable past performance evaluation stayed at the number 2 issue for FY 2016 and FY 2015.  With the number of protests doubling, it is reasonable to assume that this type of protest grew significantly also.

Bob,

Since 2005, the average annual sustain rate is 19.68% with a standard deviation is 5.14%. I see the 2016 rate as a return to normal after an unusually low sustain rate of 12% in 2015 and 13% in 2014. I think the more interesting question is why the rates were so low in those years.

I expect to see articles quoting experts giving all sorts of reasons for the one year increase. None of them will provide any evidence of causation, however.

Perhaps skewed by the numerous Latvian Connection protests?

Most of the Latvian protests didn't go to a merit decision. Here's a good analysis of the numbers: http://www.procurementplaybook.com/2016/12/gao-reports-a-dramatic-spike-in-its-bid-protest-sustain-rate-in-fy-2016/