FAR 15-306(a) defines clarifications as limited exchanges between government and offerors that may occur when an award without discussions (as in a simplified acquisition) is contemplated. When award without discussion is anticipated, the contracting officer must give an offeror an opportunity to clarify adverse past performance it had not previously had an opportunity to respond to only where there is reason to question the validity of the past performance information. In the absence of a clear basis to question it, the CO has the discretion to not ask for clarification (A.G. Cullen Constr. B-284049).

Under FAR 15-306(b) communications are exchanges between the government and offerors after receipt of proposals leading to the establishment of the competitive range. Communications are for the purpose of deciding whether a proposal be placed in the competitive range and must address adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond. However, communications do not provide an opportunity for an offeror to revise its proposal but may address information related to relevant past performance.

FAR 15-306(d) states that negotiations are exchanges in either competitive or sole-source circumstances and they are undertaken with the intent of allowing an offeror to revise its proposal after the competitive range is set. COs must conduct "meaningful" (e.g. tailored to each bidder’s proposal) discussions with offerors in the competitive range. At a minimum, proposal deficiencies and significant weakness need to be brought up and the CO must inform an offeror of adverse past performance it had not been able to respond to. The GAO ruled an agency must raise an offeror’s lack of experience during discussions if this is a major concern and if not discussed the agency has failed to conduct meaningful discussions (Cotton & Co. LLP B-282808). However, in meeting its obligation to conduct meaningful discussions an agency is not required to point out every element of an acceptable proposal that receives less than the maximum evaluation rating (Digital Sys. Group Inc., B-286931). For example, an agency was not required to conduct discussions regarding two weaknesses involving the firms past performance where the two weaknesses were not considered significant and the protester’s past performance was rated acceptable overall (Pflow Indus. Inc. B-289970).

FAR 15.306(e)(1) prevents exchanges that "favors one offeror over another." An agency’s exhanges with the awardee regarding its delivery records when viewed with its failure to conduct similar exchanges with the protester was considered improper and unequally favored the awardee (Martin Elects. Inc. B-290846).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}