UFC 4-721-11.1
26 Nov 01
CHAPTER 11
DISCUSSIONS AND AWARD
11-1 AWARD BASED ON INITIAL OFFER.
11-1.1 Chapter 5, of this document indicates that award based on discussion with offerors is likely,
however, the use of the basic clause is encouraged since it in fact allows the award of the project without
discussions should an exceptional proposal be received, see FAR 15.209 (reference 11-1). If award
based on initial offer is possible, the Contracting Division should proceed immediately with the
preparation of the Source Selection Memorandum for immediate award after approval. Award based on
an initial offer may be advantageous to the Government if:
11-1.1.1 It represents the best value to the Government under the Request for Proposals (RFP)
evaluation criteria.
11-1.1.2 It does not differ from the RFP requirements in any material way, that is, no substantive flaws
exist in the technical or cost proposals.
11-1.1.3 The price is reasonable.
11-1.1.4 The proposal contains no deficiencies or non-conforming items.
11-1.1.5 FAR clause 52.215-1 (reference 11-2) in it's basic form (no alternatives) was included in the
solicitation.
11-2 AWARD BASED ON DISCUSSIONS.
11-2.1 Even when the basic clause is selected, award is not always possible based on initial offers.
Questions and clarification items normally surface during the evaluation process which require
discussions (negotiations) with the offerors in the competitive range.
11-2.2 Discussions. Discussions with offerors should be conducted by the Contracting Division in a
timely and orderly manner so that a contract award can be made in the minimum time. The Government
has the ability to request revised proposals from offerors and continue discussions. Multiple rounds of
discussions should be avoided whenever possible. Some USACE activities use face-to-face or
telephonic discussions, while others require all discussions be conducted in writing. The recommended
method is to delineate the discussion items to each offeror in writing. Responses must be in writing,
response is required for all discussion items, and should replace or expand upon elements in the initial
proposal. Discussion items normally fall into the following five categories:
11-2.2.1 Those items in which the proposal appears to fail to meet RFP criteria.
11-2.2.2 Those items which require clarification due to contradictions, errors, or omissions in the
proposal.
11-2.2.3 Those items which, due to physical or material conditions, may cause an unsafe or hazardous
condition.
11-2.2.4 Those items which may meet the minimum RFP requirements, but are too expensive,
unwanted, undesirable, or which could otherwise be revised to better meet the Governments needs.
11-2.2.5 Prices or cost breakdown information which appears to be too high, too low, mistaken, or are
unrealistic for the corresponding technical proposal.
11-1
Previous Page
