Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Training
    • Class Registration
    • On-demand Training
    • GTPAC COVID-19 Resource Page
    • Cybersecurity
    • Veterans Verification Video
    • GTPAC Community
    • Other Training Audio & Video
  • Useful Links
  • Team Directory
    • Albany Counselor
    • Atlanta Counselors
    • Augusta Counselor
    • Carrollton Counselor
    • Columbus Counselor
    • Gainesville Counselor
    • Savannah Counselor
    • Warner Robins Counselor
  • Directions
    • Atlanta – Training Facility
    • Atlanta – Office
    • Albany
    • Augusta
    • Carrollton
    • Columbus
    • Gainesville
    • Savannah
    • Warner Robins
  • COVID-19
  • New Client Application
  • Contact Us

Discussions vs. clarifications vs. communications — and agency discretion

January 5, 2018 By Andrew Smith

Words have special meanings in federal contracting.

Here’s a description of how “discussions” differ from “clarifications” and pre-competitive range communications, as well as the Government’s discretion to conduct (or not conduct) such “exchanges.”

Discussions are exchanges between the Government and offerors after a competitive range has been established and invite or permit offerors to revise their proposals.  The underlying purpose of discussions is to allow offerors to strengthen their proposals and the procuring agency to get a better deal.  The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has long held that the “acid test” for determining if a particular exchange constitutes discussions is “whether the agency has provided an opportunity for proposals to be revised or modified.”  Raytheon Co., B‑404998, July 25, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 232 at 5.  This may be an actual pen-and-paper change to the proposal, or any other exchange that is necessary for the agency to determine the acceptability of a proposal.  See Int’l Waste Indus., B-411338, July 7, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 196 at 5.

Clarifications, on the other hand, are “limited exchanges.”  FAR 15.306(a)(1).  These exchanges do not allow offerors to revise their proposals, but may allow them to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or resolve minor clerical errors.  FAR 15.306(a)(2).  Clarifications may occur after a competitive range has been established, or even when discussions and proposal revisions are not contemplated at all.  Clarifications “cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal.”  STG, Inc., B-411415; B-411415.2, July 22, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 240 at 9.

Communications are a third category of exchanges and occur before the competitive range has been established.  See FAR 15.306(b).  Like clarifications, they do not allow offerors “to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal.”  FAR 15.503(b)(2).  They are intended only to permit the Government to improve its understanding of proposals or past performance information, and address minor issues before a competitive range is established.  When adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond would be the “determining factor” in excluding the offeror from the competitive range, the agencymust open communications with the offeror to address that information.  FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i).  For all other issues, the agency may hold communications if an offeror’s “exclusion from, or inclusion in, the competitive range is uncertain.”  FAR 15.306(b)(1)(ii).

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=653680

Filed Under: Contracting Tips Tagged With: clarification, communication, discussion, exchange, FAR, federal contracting, postaward, protest

GAO: Agency need not raise offeror’s high price in discussions

June 5, 2015 By ei2admin

When an agency decides to hold discussions with offerors, must it discuss with an offeror the price proposed for the contract? Not unless that offeror’s proposed price is so high as to be unreasonable.

GAO-GovernmentAccountabilityOffice-SealAs the GAO held in a recent bid protest decision, unless an offeror’s price is so high as to make its proposal unacceptable, the offeror is not entitled to be informed during discussions that its price is too high–even if the price is significantly higher than competitors.

The GAO helped shed light on this issue in Joint Logistics Managers, Inc., B-410465.2, B-410465.3 (May 5, 2015). There, the United States Marine Corps issued a task order RFP seeking “Care of Supplies in Storage” services in Albany Georgia, for one base year and one option year. The award was to be made on a best-value basis, considering technical approach, past performance, and price. Price was considered significantly less important than the combined non-price factors; but, price would become increasingly more important if proposals were considered technically equal or if an offeror’s price was so high as to diminish the value of any technical superiority.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/when-too-high-isnt-high-enough/

Filed Under: Contracting News Tagged With: Albany, best value, bid protest, discussion, GAO, Marine Corps, negotiation, price, RFP

Recent Posts

  • Georgia Tech creates new Office of Corporate Engagement
  • Federal contractor indicted for stealing over $1.2 million from the U.S. Postal Service
  • SBA hosting “Contract Bonds and Surety Bond Guarantee” webinar April 20th
  • GSA hosting “Getting on the GSA Schedule” webinar April 13th
  • NIH hosting 2021 small business program conference April 26-30th

Popular Topics

8(a) abuse Army bid protest budget budget cuts certification construction contract awards contracting opportunities cybersecurity DoD DOJ False Claims Act FAR federal contracting federal contracts fraud GAO Georgia Tech government contracting government contract training government trends GSA GSA Schedule GTPAC HUBZone innovation IT Justice Dept. marketing NDAA OMB SBA SDVOSB set-aside small business small business goals spending subcontracting technology VA veteran owned business VOSB wosb

Contracting News

Federal contractor indicted for stealing over $1.2 million from the U.S. Postal Service

CMMC announces new advisory council to collect industry feedback

EEOC announces April 26 opening date for the collection of 2019 and 2020 EEO-1 component 1 data

Contractors line up to rebuild MARTA’s Five Points Station

GDOT announces $828.8 million in projects to transform Ga. 316

Read More

Contracting Tips

A whole new marketplace: GSA’s “commercial platforms” initiative

CRS Reports: Mentor-Protégé programs and small business size standards

CRS Report: Small businesses and COVID-19, relief and assistance resources

How do I find out what the government is buying?

Past performance isn’t always a required evaluation factor, says GAO

Read More

GTPAC News

SBA hosting “Contract Bonds and Surety Bond Guarantee” webinar April 20th

GSA hosting “Getting on the GSA Schedule” webinar April 13th

NIH hosting 2021 small business program conference April 26-30th

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency hosting industry day and matchmaking May 6th and 20th

Missile Defense Agency hosting virtual conference May 11-13th

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Georgia Tech creates new Office of Corporate Engagement

Delta Jacket wins 2021 Georgia Tech InVenture prize

Future of 5G is under the microscope at Georgia incubator

Collective worm and robot “blobs” protect individuals, swarm together

The Partnership for Inclusive Innovation is now accepting applications for pilot programs

Read More

  • SAM.gov registration is free, and help with SAM is free, too
APTAC RSS Twitter GTPAC - 30th Year of Service

Copyright © 2021 · Georgia Tech - Enterprise Innovation Institute