This thesis will discuss the dilemmas faced by Government agencies today when considering taking corrective action. Whether in response to an offeror's initial protest, alternative dispute resolution, or a sustained protest determination, this thesis will show that agencies are frequently finding themselves in a lose-lose position when corrective action issues arise. Trying to address the need to ensure fair and impartial competition, remedy identified deficiencies, and keep the best interests of the Government in mind, agencies are faced with a maze of recommendations and opinions from the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims. These recommendations and opinions often confuse, more than clarify, appropriate agency considerations. Through exploration of the legal authorities and procedures related to agency corrective action; consideration of the unsteady state of corrective action today from the academic vantage point; and examination of the inconsistency of opinions expressed by the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, this thesis will explore not just the difficulties associated with taking corrective action, but best practices Government agencies may wish to employ when the need to take corrective action arises.