• Discussions

FAR 15.306 requires the CO discuss with each offeror being considered for award significant weaknesses, deficiencies or other aspects of its proposal that could be altered or explained to enhance the proposal’s potential for award. Discussions should not be confused with clarifications which are limited exchanges with offerors to allow correction of minor or clerical errors or to clarify proposal elements (Femme Corp). Communications were considered to be clarifications where neither offer was given the opportunity to revise its offer (Colson Svcs Corp, B-310971) or an agency’s exchanges were more akin to clarifications than discussions as no offeror was allowed to modify its quotation as a result (USGC).

It has been held there is no requirement that all areas of a proposal be addressed during discussions but only significant weaknesses e.g. those that prevent the offeror from having a reasonable chance of receiving the award need be addressed (DRS C3). While an agency must conduct “meaningful discussions” (i.e. discuss areas in a proposal requiring amplification or revision) an agency is not required to have discussions that are “all encompassing” or extremely specific in describing the extent of the agency’s concerns (Burchick Const, B-400342). Discussions are not considered inadequate if a weakness that was not addressed during discussions later becomes a determinative factor between two closely ranked proposals (Int’l Bus and Technical Consultants, B-310324). However discussions were held to be inadequate where agency told protester it could improve its technical score by providing additional amenities but this was conveyed to all offerors rather than specific concerns the agency had with it (New Jersey & H Street) or that the agency identified a narrow weakness in a staffing plan related to price but failed to mention it believed its entire staffing plan was insufficient due to lack of detail or specificity (AT&T Corp. B-299542).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}