FAR Companion Change

Back to FAR Companion

Summary

PART_15 updated: 220 lines added, 95 lines removed

Diff

--- previous
+++ current
@@ -1,97 +1,225 @@
-FAR part 15, in conjunction with part 12.
-FC 12.201 Modular acquisition strategies.
-Consider breaking large, complex requirements into smaller, independently procurable
-components that align with how commercial markets naturally organize products and services.
-This approach can open competition to vendors who excel in specific areas rather than requiring
-contractors to master every aspect of a complex system. This is a common strategy for the
-acquisition of information technology (see more in FAR part 39 and FC 39). By purchasing
-components of requirements separately (such as software applications, hardware components,
-or professional services), agencies may follow commercial best practices and reduce integration
-risks. This strategy also enables more frequent technology refreshes of individual components
-without replacing entire systems, potentially reducing long-term costs and improving
-performance over time.
-FC 12.201-1(e)(3) Blanket purchase agreements (BPAs).
-A blanket purchase agreement (BPA) is a simplified method of filling anticipated repetitive
-needs for supplies or services. BPAs may be established for use by an organization responsible
-for providing supplies for its own operations or for other offices, installations, projects, or
-functions within an agency or across the government. BPAs may be established with a single
-firm or multiple suppliers for products or services of the same type to provide maximum
-practicable competition.
-BPAs should include:
-1. Sufficient detail about the need, such as scope of work;
-2. An ordering period, inclusive of any options or award terms;
-3. Ordering procedures, such as identification of the customers/individuals authorized to
-place orders and any limitations surrounding the placement of orders; and
-4. If applicable, any ordering activity requirements, such as invoicing, delivery, discounts or
-other concessions (if any).
-BPAs should state the estimated value, but should not specify a ceiling. On an annual basis or
-prior to exercise of an option, BPAs should be reviewed to ensure the BPA still represents the
-best value; verify the accuracy of estimated quantities/amounts to assess if the value may need
-adjustments, ensure that the BPA ordering procedures are being followed; and consider if
-additional price discounts or other concessions can be obtained.
-FC 12.204 Supplier license agreements.
-Many commercial products and services are acquired subject to supplier license agreements.
-These are particularly common in information technology acquisitions, but they may apply to
-any supply or service.
-For example, computer software and services delivered through the internet (web services) are
-often subject to license agreements, referred to as End User License Agreements (EULA),
-Terms of Service (TOS), or other similar legal instruments or agreements.
-31
-Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
-The acquisition team managing Federal Supply Schedule contracts or governmentwide
-acquisition contracts under category management will establish commercial supplier license
-agreements that apply to all orders to maximize administrative efficiency.
-As much as possible, agency orders under the Federal Supply Schedule should use these
-negotiated license agreements. Agencies should review the terms and determine whether any
-further terms necessitate negotiation.
-When the supplier license agreement negotiated under existing Federal Supply Schedule or
-governmentwide acquisition contracts does not meet the agency’s need, contracting officers
-should:
-● conduct market research to identify the availability of such commercial license terms,
-● coordinate with agency legal counsel and IT personnel to review and negotiate
-acceptable license agreements, and
-● ensure that any negotiated terms comply with federal requirements and protect
-government interests while maximizing commercial terms and meeting the government’s
-operational needs.
-FC 12.301 Strategic management of award notices, brief explanations, and protest
-windows.
-To avoid unnecessarily extending the protest window, the acquisition team led by the
-contracting officer should prepare to quickly provide a brief explanation when requested after
-making award decisions and notifying unsuccessful offerors. This timing consideration is
-relevant because unsuccessful offerors generally have 10 calendar days to file a GAO bid
-protest from the date the basis of protest is known. Note that an automatic stay of performance
-at GAO is 10 days after contract award. Please note that if the last day of the computation
-period is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, then the deadline for filing is the next day the
-protest venue (e.g., GAO, soliciting agency) is open.
-Additionally, consider preemptively including the “brief explanation” in the award notice. This
-approach may start the GAO 10-day bid protest clock, marking the point at which "the basis of
-protest is known or should have been known."
-FC 12.301(b) and FC12.402(d) Contents of a brief explanation.
-The brief explanation of the award decision under FAR 12.301(b) or FAR 12.402(d)may include
-the following information:
-● The number of quotations received;
-● The name of each quoter receiving an award;
-● The total contract price; and
-● In general terms, the reason(s) the quotation was not accepted, unless the price
-information shared readily reveals the reason. In no event shall an quoter’s cost
-breakdown, profit, overhead rates, trade secrets, manufacturing processes and
-techniques, or other confidential business information be disclosed to any other quoter.
-32
-Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
-FC 12.201-1 Periodic Table of Acquisition Innovations (PTAI) for FAR part 12 simplified
-procedures.
-FAR 12.201-1 provides for simplified procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and
-services valued up to $9 million (or $15 million as outlined in FAR 12.001(b)) through the
-issuance of a Request for Quotation (RFQ) followed by a purchase order. Use of FAR part 15
-procedures for the acquisition of commercial products or services up to $9 million is no longer
-permissible.
-PTAI evaluation methodologies can be directly applied to Request for Quotation (RFQ)
-processes under FAR part 12 by offering proven innovative approaches that agencies can adopt
-and adapt to their procurements. Contracting officers can implement more efficient comparative
-evaluation approaches that focus on best value determinations rather than lengthy technical
-assessments. The use of Periodic Table of Acquisition Innovations (PTAI) and other innovative
-approaches directly support FAR part 12 core objectives of reducing time, complexity, and cost
-while maintaining acquisition integrity and achieving optimal mission outcomes.
-Many of these innovative approaches are also appropriate and beneficial for acquisition of
-commercial products and services when using FAR part 12 in conjunction with part 15 above $9
-million.+Part 15 - Contracting by Negotiation
+FC 15.001 Deficiency definition.
+FAR 15.001 defines a deficiency as “any part of an offer that does not conform to a material
+requirement of a RFP”. In addition to requirements that affect price, quantity, quality, or delivery,
+material requirements include requirements that “the RFP requires to be met at the time of
+proposal submission.” Examples of such requirements may include, but are not limited to
+prerequisites such as certifications, credentials, or licenses. When the contracting officer intends
+to treat this kind of requirement as material, ensure that the instructions to offerors section of the
+solicitation specifies the information, documentation, or evidence that offerors must submit, and
+that the basis for award section of the solicitation addresses how compliance with the
+requirement will be considered.
+FC 15.101(a) Early exchanges with industry.
+While the contracting officer is the focal point for any exchange with potential offerors after the
+release of the request for proposal (RFP), before the release, requirement owners should feel
+empowered to actively participate in early exchanges with industry even without the contracting
+officer. It is important that these exchanges do not disclose sensitive government information or
+provide any vendor preferential treatment. Agency officials should not discuss proprietary or
+other confidential business information, source selection sensitive information, or any
+information protected by the Privacy Act or Trade Secrets Act.
+Government officials can use these early exchanges to learn from industry what is possible to
+accomplish given current or upcoming advances in technology, best commercial practices, or
+other approaches to solve government challenges or accomplish mission needs.
+FC 15.103 Best value continuum.
+Best value in competitive acquisitions can be achieved through various source selection
+approaches, as outlined in FAR 15.103. The balance between price and non-price factors can
+range from price being the sole determinant among technically acceptable offers to awarding to
+the highest technically rated offeror with a fair and reasonable price. The approaches across the
+best value continuum may be used for both single award and multiple award contracts.
+35
+Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
+Best Value Continuum
+(FAR 15.103)
+A continuum showing Price on the left and Technical on the right. From left to right, it lists:
+• LPTA – Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (closest to price): Prioritizes price
+among technically acceptable offers.
+• Tradeoff (in the middle between price and technical): Non-price factors weighed
+against price. There are three tradeoff types, again listed from left (toward the price side of
+the continuum) to right (toward the technical side of the continuum):
+o Non-price factors significantly less important than price.
+o Non-price factors approximately equal to price.
+o Non-price factors significantly more important than price.
+• HTR-FRP – Highest Technically Rated with a Fair and Reasonable Price (closest to
+technical): Prioritizes technical merit; no tradeoff between non-price factors and price.
+Disclaimer: This continuum is not exhaustive and should be used in conjunction with professional
+judgment to achieve the best value for the government. Apply discretion to balance risk and value
+in procurement decisions.
+The “lowest price technically acceptable'' approach is typically used for requirements based on
+well-established technology where varied qualification levels above industry standards will not
+result in significant performance impacts.
+In a “tradeoff” approach, the difference in price is weighed against the relative risks and benefits
+assessed in non-price factors such as quality, experience, or past performance. This requires
+an analysis by the government acquisition workforce to appropriately and fairly evaluate the
+differences in both technical factors and price among all offerors.
+The “highest technically rated with a fair and reasonable price” approach is at the opposite end
+of the best value continuum from LPTA. The approach prioritizes the best possible performance,
+provided the price is determined to be fair and reasonable. Here, all proposals are initially
+evaluated based solely on the non-price factors specified in the solicitation. Only the price of the
+highest-ranked technical proposal is then evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable. This
+method avoids technical-price tradeoffs among offerors.
+Variations of this approach may include establishing a predetermined fixed "bid to price" or an
+acceptable target price range. These targets can be based on independent cost estimates, a
+request for information (RFI), or the requiring activity’s budget and affordability estimate. During
+the bid and proposal process, offerors often estimate the ideal proposal price based on their
+perception of whether the government seeks an "economical" or a "luxury" solution. This
+approach, when properly used, can help industry reduce "gamesmanship" and lower transaction
+costs. This approach is suitable when the buyer has a strong understanding of the requirements
+and technologies involved, allowing them to rely on the validity of their independent cost
+estimate, as further refined by the RFI.
+36
+Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
+FC 15.102 Phased evaluation approach and down-select processes.
+When a large number of responses is anticipated in a competitive acquisition, the acquisition
+team may consider a phased evaluation and down-select process to promote efficiency,
+increase competition, and reduce the bid and proposal burden for industry. In a down-select, all
+offers are evaluated in the first phase under some of the evaluation factors, with the expectation
+that fewer offers will be considered in one or more subsequent phases.
+The solicitation may require a phased offer submission (where the initial offer will address some
+evaluation factors and one or more subsequent offer updates will address the remaining
+evaluation factors). This is a matter for the contracting officer’s discretion and sound business
+judgment, considering the realities of the marketplace and the complexities of the acquisition.
+A notional two-phase down-select scenario is described in the table below. The contracting
+officer should adapt this process to fit the particular acquisition. The solicitation should clearly
+detail the evaluation factors that are relevant for each evaluation phase.
+Notional scenario of a down-select process
+Release solicitation describing all evaluation factors. Require offerers
+1
+to submit proposals that address Phase 1 factors
+2 Receive Phase 1 proposals
+Phase 1
+3 Evaluate Phase 1 factors
+Down-select to a subset of proposals based on evaluation of Phase 1
+4
+factors
+Notify offerors of the government’s decision (in the event of a firm
+down-select process) or recommendation (in the event of an advisory
+5
+down-select process). Request down-selected offerers to submit
+proposals that address Phase 2 factors
+Phase 2 6 Receive Phase 2 proposals
+7 Evaluate Phase 2 factors
+Select awardees in accordance with the evaluation approach outlined
+8
+in the solicitation
+For acquisitions where the contracting officer is not the selecting official, the contracting officer
+may make the down-select decision, while the selecting official retains the award decision.
+Below are two broad approaches to a phased evaluation or down-select process, an advisory
+approach and a firm approach.
+In an advisory or voluntary down-select process, an offeror not recommended to proceed to the
+next phase may still elect to participate in the next phase, and if so, will be considered for
+award. At the conclusion of an advisory down-select phase, the contracting officer informs each
+offeror either (1) that it is invited to participate in the next phase; or (2) that, based on the
+37
+Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
+information it has already submitted, it is unlikely to be a viable competitor along with the
+general basis for that opinion. However, the notice should not restrict any offeror from
+participating in the next phase. The notices should inform offerors of the next submission
+requirements and deadlines. Since no offeror has been eliminated, there are no grounds for
+protest.
+In a firm or involuntary down-select process, an offeror not selected to proceed to the next
+phase will not be further considered for award. At the conclusion of a firm down-select process,
+it is recommended that the contracting officer inform each offeror either (1) that it is invited to
+participate in the next phase and provide information on the next submission requirements and
+deadlines; or (2) that it is no longer considered eligible for award.
+Best practices and use cases for the application of down-selects can be found at the Periodic
+Table of Acquisition Innovations (PTAI).
+FC 15.105-1 Oral presentations and product demonstrations.
+Oral presentations or product demonstrations deliver maximum value when scheduled in
+subsequent or final evaluation phases with a smaller, competitive pool of offerors. Treating the
+oral presentation or demonstration as a stand-alone evaluation factor, separate from other
+technical, management, or cost factors, ensures objective assessment and prevents overlap
+with written proposal evaluations. In addition, an oral presentation or product demonstration
+allows the government to discern actual capabilities of offerors (e.g., vice their use of proposal
+writers or artificial intelligence in proposal preparation).
+When allowing briefing slides or written materials to accompany oral presentations or
+demonstrations, establishing uniform submission requirements creates a level playing field.
+Setting a common cut-off date and time, along with strict page or slide limits, focuses evaluation
+on the oral/demonstration aspects rather than written content. These constraints also clarify for
+all offerors that supplemental materials do not represent an opportunity to revise their proposals.
+To maintain a fresh collective memory and avoid bias from subsequent presentations, it is
+recommended to evaluate oral presentations and demonstrations immediately after each one
+concludes.
+As an example, an approach can involve limiting presentation materials to 10 slides maximum,
+requiring submission 48 hours before the presentation, and explicitly stating in the solicitation
+that slides will only be used to support the oral presentation—not scored as standalone written
+content. This keeps the focus on the offeror's ability to communicate and demonstrate
+capabilities in real-time rather than creating another written submission opportunity.
+FC 15.106(e) Amendments based on alternate solutions.
+When the government becomes interested in a proposal that departs from the RFP's stated
+requirements, contracting officers may issue an amendment to permit alternative solutions by all
+offerors. Some best practices for RFP amendments based on alternative solutions include:
+● Focus on outcomes: Carefully prepare the amendment to avoid revealing the specific
+alternate approach or any proprietary information from the proposal that sparked the
+38
+Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
+government's interest; focus instead on the desired outcomes the government is
+interested in.
+● Open door to innovation: Allow offerors to propose their own innovative solutions, even if
+they had not initially considered doing so.
+● Maintain fairness: If alternative solutions were not clearly permitted and the government
+is open to them, amending the RFP provides all offerors the opportunity to compete on
+the basis of new criteria.
+● Government benefit: The government potentially benefits from a wider range of solutions
+that could lead to better outcomes for the mission or service delivery.
+As an example, an RFP required landscaping and grounds maintenance services for a
+government facility. The RFP specified that all grass cutting must be done using traditional gas-
+powered mowers and that fertilizer application must be done using a specific granular fertilizer.
+The RFP also required a minimum of five on-site personnel during each service visit. An offeror
+proposed a different approach using electric mowers powered by renewable energy sources
+(via solar panels installed on their service vehicles). They also proposed using an organic, liquid
+fertilizer applied through a precision spraying system. Finally, they stated that through the use of
+more efficient equipment and optimized routing, they can achieve the same level of service with
+only three on-site personnel. The government found this alternate solution appealing because it
+aligned with sustainability goals, reduced noise pollution, and potentially lowered long-term
+costs (less fuel, fewer personnel). The CO issued an amendment to the RFP, phrased in a way
+that did not reveal the specifics of the original offeror's proposal.
+The amended language stated: “The Government will consider alternative approaches to
+grounds maintenance that demonstrate a commitment to environmental sustainability and/or
+offer potential cost savings. Offerors are encouraged to propose solutions that reduce reliance
+on fossil fuels, minimize environmental impact, and/or optimize labor resources while meeting or
+exceeding the performance standards outlined in the original RFP."
+The amendment did not reveal the offeror’s proposed solution (e.g., it did not mention electric
+mowers, solar panels, or specific fertilizer types). It focused on the outcomes the government
+was interested in (sustainability, cost savings). It allowed other offerors to propose their own
+innovative solutions, even if they had not initially considered doing so. Maybe another offeror
+has a different approach to sustainable landscaping. All offerors now have the opportunity to
+compete on the basis of these new criteria. The government potentially benefits from a wider
+range of innovative solutions that could lead to better outcomes (environmental, financial, etc.).
+FC 15.202(b) Rating systems.
+Proposals should be evaluated based on their underlying merits. When using the tradeoff
+approach, the evaluation must include an assessment of each offeror’s ability to accomplish the
+technical requirements as well as an evaluation of the relative strengths, deficiencies, significant
+weaknesses, and risks supporting the evaluation. While the evaluation is not required to include
+a rating system, a contracting officer may consider using a rating system when helpful to guide
+decision-making, such as evaluations involving several evaluation factors or where there is a
+high probability of having a number of closely rated proposals. Rating systems can provide a
+consistent, structured method for evaluators to assess the merits of a proposal, and generally to
+organize evaluation documentation and supporting rationale for evaluation decisions. In
+39
+Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Companion
+choosing to employ a rating system, weigh any time added and effort required to develop and
+apply rating definitions or criteria against any benefit the rating system is expected to add to the
+evaluation process.
+There are several rating systems that can be used for source selection evaluation. Common
+rating approaches include but are not limited to adjectival ratings, confidence ratings, numeric or
+score-based ratings, and risk-based ratings. While source selections under FAR 15.202(b)(2)(ii)
+using tradeoffs require an evaluation of relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses,
+and risks, these can be incorporated into any of the rating approaches. The key is that any
+rating approach should never be a rigid counting exercise, but a holistic evaluation of the
+proposals grounded in the government’s overall expectation of successful performance.
+Evaluation best practices and use cases, including the application of confidence ratings, can be
+found at the Periodic Table of Acquisition Innovations (PTAI).
+FC 15.202(b) On-the-spot consensus.
+On-the-spot consensus evaluation is a method used in source selections where evaluators
+collaboratively discuss and immediately agree upon the substantive merits and associated
+rating, as applicable, for a proposal against specific criteria. On-the-spot consensus is suitable
+for the evaluation of written proposals, as well as oral presentations or technical
+demonstrations.
+This approach involves the evaluators reading proposals, then engaging as an evaluation team
+in a focused discussion to identify key strengths, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks,
+arriving at a unified assessment and corresponding rating in real-time, and documenting the
+assessment and corresponding rating, as applicable, immediately thereafter.
+The benefits of using on-the-spot consensus evaluation include increased efficiency, as it
+streamlines the evaluation process by eliminating the need for multiple rounds of individual
+reviews and consolidations. Overall, on-the-spot consensus evaluation provides a collaborative
+and efficient approach to assessing proposals.