Skip to Content

We invite you to try out our new beta eCFR site at We’ve made big changes to make the eCFR easier to use. Be sure to leave feedback using the 'Feedback' button on the bottom right of each page!

Proposed Rule

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Discussion Requirements

Document Details

Information about this document as published in the Federal Register.

Document Statistics
Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.
Published Document

This document has been published in the Federal Register. Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Start Preamble Start Printed Page 17582


Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).


Proposed rule.


The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to clarify the scope of discussions in competitive negotiated acquisitions.


Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before June 2, 2000, to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.


Submit written comments to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.

Submit electronic comments via the Internet to:

Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 1999-022 in all correspondence related to this case.

Start Further Info


The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, at (202) 501-4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Mr. Ralph De Stefano, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-1758. Please cite FAR case 1999-022.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information


A. Background

The proposed rule amends FAR 15.306(d) to clarify the Councils' view that the contracting officer is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved.

The rule explains that discussions of offerors' proposals beyond deficiencies and significant weaknesses are a matter of contracting officer judgment. GAO has already interpreted the previous FAR language consistently with this clarification in MRC Federal, Inc. (B-280969, December 14, 1998) and Du & Associates (B-280283.3, December 22, 1998). The rule encourages the contracting officer to discuss other aspects of an offerors' proposal that have the potential, if changed, to materially increase the value of the proposal to the Government (B-280283.3). However, the rule makes clear that whether these discussions would be worthwhile is within the contracting officer's discretion.

This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule only clarifies existing policy that the scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment. Therefore, we have not prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. We invite comments from small businesses and other interested parties. The Councils will consider comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR subpart in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 1999-022), in correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Start List of Subjects

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 15

  • Government procurement
End List of Subjects Start Signature

Dated: March 29, 2000.

Edward C. Loeb,

Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.

End Signature

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that 48 CFR part 15 be amended as set forth below:

Start Part


1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 15 continues to read as follows:

Start Authority

Authority: 40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

End Authority

2. Amend section 15.306 by revising paragraph (d)(3); by redesignating paragraph (d)(4) as (d)(5); and by adding a new paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.
* * * * *

(d) * * *

(3) At a minimum, the contracting officer must, subject to paragraphs (d)(5) and (e) of this section and 15.307(a), indicate to or discuss with each offeror still being considered for award significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The contracting officer also is encouraged to discuss other aspects of the offeror's proposal (such as cost, price, technical approach, past performance, and terms and conditions) that could, in the opinion of the contracting officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for award. However, the contracting officer is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment.

(4) In discussing other aspects of the proposal, the Government may, in situations where the solicitation stated that evaluation credit would be given for technical solutions exceeding any mandatory minimums, negotiate with offerors for increased performance beyond any mandatory minimums, and the Government may suggest to offerors that have exceeded any mandatory minimums (in ways that are not integral to the design) that their proposals would be more competitive if the excesses were removed and the offered price decreased.

* * * * *
End Part End Supplemental Information

[FR Doc. 00-8135 Filed 3-31-00; 8:45 am]