FAR 15.3—Subpart 15.3

Scope of subpart.

FAR 15.300 is the scope statement for FAR Subpart 15.3, and it tells readers what the subpart is about: the policies and procedures for selecting a source or sources in competitive negotiated acquisitions. In practice, this means the subpart governs how agencies choose among competing offerors when using negotiated procurement methods, rather than sealed bidding. It frames the rules for source selection decisions, including how the Government evaluates proposals and determines which offeror or offerors will receive award in a competitive environment. The section is brief, but it is important because it defines the boundary of the subpart and signals that the detailed procedures in the rest of Subpart 15.3 apply only to competitive negotiated acquisitions. For contracting officers and contractors, this helps identify when source-selection rules, evaluation procedures, and award decision practices are relevant, and when they are not.

[Reserved]

Source selection objective.

FAR 15.302 states the basic objective of source selection in negotiated procurements: to choose the proposal that represents the best value to the Government. This section is short, but it is foundational because it frames the entire source selection process under FAR Part 15, including how proposals are evaluated, compared, and ultimately selected. In practice, it means the Government is not required to award to the lowest-priced offeror unless that offer provides the best value under the solicitation’s stated evaluation scheme. The section supports the use of tradeoffs, evaluation factors, and source selection authority judgment, while also reinforcing that the selection decision must be tied to the solicitation and the Government’s needs. For contractors, it signals that winning is about more than price alone; for contracting officials, it means the record must show why the chosen proposal is the best value based on the announced criteria.

Responsibilities.

FAR 15.303 assigns responsibility for source selection in negotiated procurements and explains how that responsibility is divided between the agency head, the source selection authority (SSA), and the contracting officer. It covers who is legally accountable for source selection, when the contracting officer is the default SSA, when another person may be appointed, and what the SSA must do before and during the evaluation process. The section also addresses the need to build an evaluation team with the right mix of contracting, legal, logistics, technical, and other expertise; approve the source selection strategy or acquisition plan before solicitation release; and ensure the solicitation package is internally consistent. It further requires that proposals be evaluated only against the stated factors and subfactors, that advisory board or panel recommendations be considered if used, and that the SSA select the proposal offering the best value to the Government. Finally, it defines the contracting officer’s post-solicitation role as the focal point for offeror inquiries, the manager of exchanges with offerors under FAR 15.306 after proposals are received, and the official who awards the contract(s). In practice, this section is about accountability, fairness, and disciplined source selection: it helps ensure the evaluation process is properly planned, legally defensible, and tied to the solicitation so offerors are treated consistently and the Government can support its award decision.

Evaluation factors and significant subfactors.

FAR 15.304 explains how agencies must choose and disclose the evaluation factors and significant subfactors used in negotiated source selections. It covers the core principle that award decisions must be based on tailored factors that reflect the acquisition’s key areas of importance and allow meaningful comparison among proposals, as well as the requirement to state those factors and their relative importance in the solicitation. The section also addresses mandatory consideration of price or cost, the special DoD/NASA/Coast Guard exception for certain multiple-award contracts, the requirement to evaluate quality through non-cost factors, the general rule that past performance must be evaluated in most competitive negotiated acquisitions above the simplified acquisition threshold, and special past-performance and subcontracting participation factors for consolidation or bundling situations with significant subcontracting opportunities. It further requires agencies to avoid unfavorably evaluating telecommuting unless a written FAR 7.108(b) determination is made, and it explains how solicitations must describe the overall importance of non-price factors relative to price or cost. In practice, this section is about transparency, defensible source selection, and ensuring the evaluation scheme matches the acquisition strategy so offerors know what matters and evaluators can make a sound, well-documented award decision.

Proposal evaluation.

FAR 15.305 explains how agencies must evaluate competitive proposals and document the source selection record. It covers the core rule that proposals may be rated only against the solicitation’s stated factors and subfactors, the use of rating methods such as color, adjectival, numerical, or ordinal systems, and the requirement to document strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks. It also addresses cost or price evaluation, including when price analysis alone is enough, when cost analysis is needed, and when cost realism analysis is required for cost-reimbursement and sometimes fixed-price-type contracts. The section further covers past performance evaluation, including relevance, currency, source quality, predecessor companies, key personnel, subcontractors, offerors with no relevant history, subcontracting plan performance for small disadvantaged business concerns, and joint ventures. In addition, it addresses technical evaluation documentation in tradeoff acquisitions, the handling of cost information by technical evaluators, the special rule for small business subcontracting evaluation, the authority to reject all proposals, and the restriction on using support contractor personnel in proposal evaluation. In practice, this section is central to fair, defensible source selection because it tells contracting officers and source selection teams what they may consider, how they must document it, and where they must avoid using unstated criteria or improper evaluators.

Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.

FAR 15.306 explains how the Government may communicate with offerors after proposals are received in negotiated procurements. It covers four major stages and tools: clarifications when award without discussions is contemplated, communications before establishment of the competitive range, how the competitive range is established and reduced, and discussions/negotiations after the competitive range is set. The section also defines the difference between clarifications, communications, discussions, and negotiations, and it ties those exchanges to past performance information, proposal ambiguities, deficiencies, weaknesses, omissions, and errors. In practice, this rule is about preserving competition while allowing the contracting officer to obtain the information needed to make a sound award decision. It also protects fairness by limiting when and how the Government can talk to offerors, especially so one offeror is not given an improper chance to revise its proposal outside the rules. For contractors, this section signals when they may be asked to explain, correct, or revise parts of a proposal, and when they may not. For contracting officers, it sets the procedural guardrails for documenting decisions, establishing the competitive range, and conducting meaningful discussions aimed at best value.

Proposal revisions.

FAR 15.307 governs proposal revisions during negotiated procurements after discussions begin and before award. It addresses four core topics: when revisions from an offeror may no longer be accepted because the offeror has been removed from the competitive range; when the contracting officer may request or permit revisions to clarify and document understandings reached in negotiations; the requirement to give every remaining competitive-range offeror an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision at the end of discussions; and the need to set a common cutoff date only for receipt of those final proposal revisions. It also requires the contracting officer’s request for final proposal revisions to tell offerors that the revisions must be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without seeking any further revisions. In practice, this section is designed to preserve fairness, maintain the integrity of discussions, and create a clear, final record of each offeror’s proposal before award. For contractors, it signals the last chance to improve or confirm their proposal after discussions; for contracting officers, it provides the procedural guardrails for closing discussions and moving to source selection.

Source selection decision.

FAR 15.308 explains how the source selection authority (SSA) must make and document the award decision in negotiated procurements. It covers four core topics: the requirement to compare proposals against all solicitation source selection criteria, the SSA’s ability to rely on reports and analyses prepared by others, the requirement that the final decision reflect the SSA’s independent judgment, and the need to document the decision and the business judgments and tradeoffs behind it. It also addresses how to explain the benefits of paying more for a higher-rated proposal, while making clear that the documentation does not have to mathematically quantify every tradeoff. In practice, this section is about ensuring the award decision is rational, defensible, and tied to the solicitation—not just a summary of evaluator opinions. It helps protect the integrity of the source selection process, supports transparency and accountability, and creates a record that can withstand protest scrutiny.