(a) If an offerors proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror's proposal shall be accepted or considered.
(b) The contracting officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. The contracting officer is required to establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for final proposal revisions shall advise offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case:
Dubinsky v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 243 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
Dubinsky v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 243 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
· cites it 3× “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.307 (b) (emphasis added). Thus, once the request for final proposal revisions has been issued at the conclusion of discussions, it follows that an agency generally may not engage in further discussions with any offerors.”
Mantech Telecomm. & Info. Sys. Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 57 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
“This prong of the proposed action is dictated by section 15.307 of the FAR, which mandates that “[a]t the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision.”
Inserso Corp. v. United States, 961 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“See 48 C.F.R. § 15.307 . Ultimately, such bidders had until June 20, 2018, to submit their final revised proposals for the small-busi- ness competition.”
Supreme Foodservice Gmbh v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 402 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
“48 C.F.R. § 15.307 (b) provides in relevant part: The contracting officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations.”
Caddell Constr. Co. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 383 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
“48 C.F.R. § 15.307 (b) (2016). As explained by Professors Nash, Cibinie, and Yukins: If the negotiations have been carried to the point of agreement with each offeror in the competitive range, the agency may expect the final proposal revisions to reflect that agreement.”
Kropp Holdings, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025).
“306 (d)(1) (setting forth that after establishing the competitive range, any discussions conducted by an agency must be “tailored to each offeror’s proposal, and must be conducted by the contracting officer with each offeror within the competitive range” (emphasis added)). Once…”
Kropp Holdings, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025).
“306 (d)(1) (setting forth that after establishing the competitive range, any discussions conducted by an agency must be “tailored to each offeror’s proposal, and must be conducted by the contracting officer with each offeror within the competitive range” (emphasis added)). Once…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.