Bob Lohfeld

COMMENTARY

What the government won't tell you about your proposal

When you talk, be prepared and know what is left unsaid

Congratulations, your proposal has made competitive range, and the government has contacted you to discuss your offer. What the government will and won’t tell you in these discussions can be a surprise to the unprepared bidder, but sophisticated players know the rules and what to expect.

First, it is important to know if your dialogue with the government is a discussion or a clarification. There is a difference, and it is important to which type of communication is being requested.

Discussions are a formal part of the federal procurement process that allows the government to engage in a substantive dialogue with offerors. They occur after the competitive range determination.

If you engage in discussions, a meaningful two-way exchange of information, then you are entitled to revise any part of your proposal you desire — unless, of course, the government tells you otherwise.

If you engage in clarifications, responding to requests from the government to clarify what you wrote, then you are not entitled to change your proposal. Always confirm which type of communication is being requested if you're not unclear.

Discussions need not be equal

When agencies enter into discussion with offerors, they do not have to treat offerors equally. For example, an agency can have discussions with one offeror about its price proposal and not discuss any other sections of that offeror’s proposal. For a second offeror in the competitive range for the same procurement, the agency has no obligation to discuss that offeror’s price proposal even though they did with the first. However, when conducting exchanges with offerors, agency personnel may not “engage in conduct that…favors one offeror over another,” (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(e)(1)); in particular, agencies may not engage in what amounts to disparate treatment of competing offerors.

Discussions need not be comprehensive

The government has no obligation to discuss weaknesses in your proposal, even though you might presume that is the purpose of discussions. FAR 15.306(d)(3)) is skillfully written so that when conducting discussions with offerors in the competitive range, those discussions include “at a minimum…deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond.”

Agencies are not required to afford offerors all-encompassing discussions or to discuss every aspect of a proposal that receives less than the maximum score. Agencies are not required to advise an offeror of a minor weakness that is not considered significant, even when the weakness subsequently becomes a determinative factor in choosing between two closely ranked proposals.

If the agency determines that your proposal is full of weaknesses that are not deemed significant, it does not need to discuss them.

Discussions are not intended to provide the whole truth about how the agency scored your proposal.

Discussions must be meaningful

When an agency engages in discussions with an offeror, the discussions must be meaningful — sufficiently detailed to lead an offeror into proposal areas requiring amplifications or revisions that materially enhance its potential for receiving the award. The government may help you rid your proposal of significant weaknesses and deficiencies — assuming you made competitive range — but don’t expect it to lead you to eliminate weaknesses in your offer.

If you understand the discussion rules, you’ll know that discussions focus on remedying significant weaknesses in your proposal, not on leveling the playing field. Be prepared to correct these significant weaknesses — and any other hidden weaknesses when you submit your revised final proposal.

About the Author

Bob Lohfeld is the chief executive officer of the Lohfeld Consulting Group. E-mail is robert.lohfeld@lohfeldconsulting.com.

Reader Comments

Mon, Jan 3, 2011 Jaime Gracia Washington, DC

No problems with the article, as it is correct and very sound advice. However, the issue that I see in working with my federal clients is the fear of protest for not treating all offerors the same. As a result, many procurement officials will demand that all weaknesses be addressed, else it may be an issue for a protest by a firm trying to find any reason to get back into the competition. Further, these officials may bypass orals and want to include all offerors in the competitive range, and thus see the need to get all weaknesses addressed to make a final award decision. The risk adverse nature of procurement is creating environments where fear of protests are driving many decisions, often creating extra work and delaying programs.

Thu, Dec 30, 2010 Stephanie Colorado

Great article! Having been on both sides of the table during discussions and clarifications, your article is clear and informative to those who are new to the game. Thanks!

Mon, Dec 27, 2010 Rich Burns Potomac, MD

As always, I find your articles useful and inciteful. I particularly liked your explanation distinguishing a discussion from a clarification. If one "just" answers the government's question, there is little chance of "getting into trouble." Doing anything more "opens the door" to unintended questions or confusion on the part of the government.

Thu, Dec 23, 2010 Matt Reiner

All good points, Bob. Thank you! In my experience, we apply 3 rules to these meetings: 1) Make a good first impression. These meetings enable the Government to decide if they want to work with you (especially if you are new to them). Treat it like a trial kickoff meeting, and have the proposed PM lead your team (if possible). 2) Listen twice as much as you speak. The meeting is about the Government’s needs – not yours. 3) Whatever the Government asks about is an issue to them. Use your clarification (or enhancements and corrections) to demonstrate your ability to listen and your willingness meet the Government's needs.

Thu, Dec 16, 2010 John R.

Good summary of the process, I have been through it many times.

Show All Comments

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close
SEARCH
 Top 100 Slideshow
contracts DB

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Read More

  • Is SBA MIA on contractor fraud? Nick Wakeman

    Editor Nick Wakeman explores the puzzle of why SBA has been so silent on the latest contractor fraud scandal when it has been so quick to act in other cases. Read More

Webcasts