FAR 15.306—Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals.
Plain-English Summary
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.
Key Rules
Clarifications are limited
Clarifications are narrow exchanges used when award without discussions is contemplated. They may be used to resolve minor or clerical errors or to clarify limited aspects of a proposal, such as the relevance of past performance information, but they do not permit proposal revision.
Award without discussions
If the solicitation states that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions, award may be made on that basis. If the Government later decides discussions are necessary, the contracting officer must document the rationale in the contract file.
Pre-range communications are limited
Before the competitive range is established, the Government may communicate only with certain offerors and only for limited purposes. These communications may help the Government understand proposals, interpret them reasonably, and evaluate them, but they cannot be used to cure deficiencies, materially alter proposals, or otherwise allow revisions.
Past performance must be addressed
When adverse past performance information has not previously been available for comment, the Government must give the offeror an opportunity to respond in both pre-range communications and discussions as required. This protects fairness and helps ensure the evaluation is based on accurate information.
Competitive range is based on ratings
The contracting officer must evaluate all proposals under the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and then establish the competitive range from the most highly rated proposals. If the solicitation allows it, the range may be limited further for efficiency, but only to the greatest number that still permits an efficient competition.
Elimination from range ends consideration
If a proposal is removed from the competitive range after the required procedures are followed, it is no longer considered for award. The unsuccessful offeror must receive written notice and may request a debriefing under the applicable FAR provisions.
Discussions are tailored and mandatory for range offerors
Once the competitive range is established, discussions are negotiations intended to allow proposal revision and may include bargaining. The contracting officer must conduct tailored discussions with each offeror in the competitive range.
Discussions must cover key issues
At a minimum, the contracting officer must identify deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information that the offeror has not yet had a chance to address. The contracting officer should also discuss other proposal aspects that could improve the Government’s ability to obtain best value.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Evaluate all proposals under the solicitation criteria, establish and document the competitive range, decide whether clarifications, communications, or discussions are appropriate, and conduct tailored discussions with each offeror in the competitive range. The contracting officer must also ensure adverse past performance information is addressed, document any decision to move from award without discussions to discussions, and provide written notice when an offeror is eliminated from the competitive range.
Agency/Source Selection Team
Support the evaluation of proposals, identify strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and past performance issues, and help the contracting officer determine which proposals are most highly rated and whether communications or discussions are needed. The team must preserve the integrity of the evaluation and avoid using communications to improperly let offerors revise proposals outside the rules.
Offerors
Respond accurately and promptly to clarifications, communications, and discussions when invited by the Government. Offerors should use the opportunity to explain past performance information, resolve minor errors when allowed, and revise proposals during discussions only within the limits established by the contracting officer.
Contracting Activity/Agency
Ensure solicitations include required notices when award without discussions or competitive-range limitation for efficiency may be used. The agency must also support proper documentation, notice to unsuccessful offerors, and debriefing rights where applicable.
Practical Implications
This section is one of the main guardrails for negotiated procurements, so the exact label of an exchange matters. Calling something a clarification does not make it a discussion, and using clarifications to let an offeror fix a substantive problem can create protest risk.
Contracting officers must be careful not to give one offeror an unfair chance to rewrite its proposal before the competitive range is set. Pre-range communications are limited and cannot be used to cure material defects or omissions.
Past performance is a recurring issue under this section. If adverse past performance information has not previously been shared with the offeror, the Government generally must give the offeror a chance to respond before relying on it to exclude the offeror or evaluate it negatively.
The competitive range decision is not just a ranking exercise; it is a procedural milestone that controls whether discussions occur and who may revise proposals. Poor documentation of ratings, range decisions, or efficiency-based narrowing can undermine the award.
For contractors, the practical lesson is to treat every exchange as potentially consequential. A weak proposal may be excluded before discussions, and once excluded, the offeror loses the chance to revise unless the agency reopens the process or a protest succeeds.
Official Regulatory Text
(a) Clarifications and award without discussions. (1) Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors, that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. (2) If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals ( e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. (3) Award may be made without discussions if the solicitation states that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. If the solicitation contains such a notice and the Government determines it is necessary to conduct discussions, the rationale for doing so shall be documented in the contract file (see the provision at 52.215-1 ) ( 10 U.S.C. 3303(a)(2) and 41 U.S.C. 3703(a)(2) ). (b) Communications with offerors before establishment of the competitive range . Communications are exchanges, between the Government and offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range. If a competitive range is to be established, these communications- (1) Shall be limited to the offerors described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section and- (i) Shall be held with offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being placed within the competitive range. Such communications shall address adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond; and (ii) May only be held with those offerors (other than offerors under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section) whose exclusion from, or inclusion in, the competitive range is uncertain; (2) May be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Such communications shall not 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. Such communications may be considered in rating proposals for the purpose of establishing the competitive range; (3) Are for the purpose of addressing issues that must be explored to determine whether a proposal should be placed in the competitive range. Such communications shall not provide an opportunity for the offeror to revise its proposal, but may address- (i) Ambiguities in the proposal or other concerns ( e.g., perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes (see 14.407 )); and (ii) Information relating to relevant past performance; and (4) Shall address adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment. (c) Competitive range. (1) Agencies shall evaluate all proposals in accordance with 15.305 (a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, establish the competitive range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section. (2) After evaluating all proposals in accordance with 15.305 (a) and paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the contracting officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. Provided the solicitation notifies offerors that the competitive range can be limited for purposes of efficiency (see 52.215-1 (f)(4)), the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals ( 10 U.S.C. 3303 and 41 U.S.C. 3703 ). (3) If the contracting officer, after complying with paragraph (d)(3) of this section, decides that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision shall be provided to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with 15.503 . (4) Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing (see 15.505 and 15.506 ). (d) Exchanges with offerors after establishment of the competitive range . Negotiations are exchanges, in either a competitive or sole source environment, between the Government and offerors, that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal. These negotiations may include bargaining. Bargaining includes persuasion, alteration of assumptions and positions, give-and-take, and may apply to price, schedule, technical requirements, type of contract, or other terms of a proposed contract. When negotiations are conducted in a competitive acquisition, they take place after establishment of the competitive range and are called discussions. (1) Discussions are tailored to each offeror’s proposal, and must be conducted by the contracting officer with each offeror within the competitive range. (2) The primary objective of discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. (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, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, 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 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. (5) If, after discussions have begun, an offeror originally in the competitive range is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated offerors being considered for award, that offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or whether or not the offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision (see 15.307 (a) and 15.503 (a)(1)). (e) Limits on exchanges . Government personnel involved in the acquisition shall not engage in conduct that- (1) Favors one offeror over another; (2) Reveals an offeror's technical solution, including— (i) Unique technology; (ii) Innovative and unique uses of commercial products or commercial services; or (iii) Any information that would compromise an offeror's intellectual property to another offeror; (3) Reveals an offeror's price without that offeror's permission. However, the contracting officer may inform an offeror that its price is considered by the Government to be too high, or too low, and reveal the results of the analysis supporting that conclusion. It is also permissible, at the Government's discretion, to indicate to all offerors the cost or price that the Government's price analysis, market research, and other reviews have identified as reasonable ( 41 U.S.C. 2102 and 2107 ). When using reverse auction procedures (see subpart 17.8), it is also permissible to reveal to all offerors the offered price(s), without revealing any offeror's identity; (4) Reveals the names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance; or (5) Knowingly furnishes source selection information in violation of 3.104 and 41 U.S.C.2102 and 2107).