48 C.F.R. § 15.506

15.506 Postaward debriefing of offerors.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) An offeror, upon its written request received by the agency within 3 days after the date on which that offeror has received notification of contract award in accordance with 15.503(b), shall be debriefed and furnished the basis for the selection decision and contract award.

(2) To the maximum extent practicable, the debriefing should occur within 5 days after receipt of the written request. Offerors that requested a postaward debriefing in lieu of a preaward debriefing, or whose debriefing was delayed for compelling reasons beyond contract award, also should be debriefed within this time period.

(3) An offeror that was notified of exclusion from the competition (see 15.505(a)), but failed to submit a timely request, is not entitled to a debriefing.

(4)(i) Untimely debriefing requests may be accommodated.

(ii) Government accommodation of a request for delayed debriefing pursuant to 15.505(a)(2), or any untimely debriefing request, does not automatically extend the deadlines for filing protests. Debriefings delayed pursuant to 15.505(a)(2) could affect the timeliness of any protest filed subsequent to the debriefing.

(b) Debriefings of successful and unsuccessful offerors may be done orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable to the contracting officer.

(c) The contracting officer should normally chair any debriefing session held. Individuals who conducted the evaluations shall provide support.

(d) At a minimum, the debriefing information shall include—

(1) The Government's evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror's proposal, if applicable;

(2) The overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices), and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance information on the debriefed offeror;

(3) The overall ranking of all offerors, when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection;

(4) A summary of the rationale for award;

(5) For acquisitions of commercial products, the make and model of the product to be delivered by the successful offeror; and

(6) Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed.

(e) The debriefing shall not include point-by-point comparisons of the debriefed offeror's proposal with those of other offerors. Moreover, the debriefing shall not reveal any information prohibited from disclosure by 24.202 or exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) including—

(1) Trade secrets;

(2) Privileged or confidential manufacturing processes and techniques;

(3) Commercial and financial information that is privileged or confidential, including cost breakdowns, profit, indirect cost rates, and similar information; and

(4) The names of individuals providing reference information about an offeror's past performance.

(f) An official summary of the debriefing shall be included in the contract file.

[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 86 FR 61026, Nov. 4, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Inserso Corp. v. United States, 961 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Inserso Corp. v. United States, 961 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 4× “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (d). Although it may have been impossi- ble to know the precise contents of the full-and-open com- petition’s debriefings, Inserso should have known that those debriefings were bound to contain information that would provide a competitive advantage in the…”

Kentucky v. United States, 62 Fed. Cl. 445 (Fed. Cl. 2004). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to 48 C.F.R § 15.506, 5 on April 16, 2004 KDB requested a debriefing from the Army explaining the award, which the Army conducted shortly thereafter at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.”

DGS Contract Serv., Inc. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 227 (Fed. Cl. 1999). · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (d). Neither party disputes that plaintiff properly received this information via 48 C.”

MTB Grp., Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 516 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 3× “48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (d)(2) requires, at a minimum, a debriefing on the selection process to include the “overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices), and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance…”

MCI Worldcom, Inc. v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 163 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2001). · cites it 2× “503 (b)(iv-v)(b)(v) (“In no event shall an offeror’s cost breakdown, profit, overhead rates, trade secrets, manufacturing processes and techniques, or other confidential business information be disclosed to any other offeror”); 48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (“the debriefing shall not…”

Hawpe Constr., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (1999). Plaintiff at that time discussed with Ms.”

Bilfinger Berger AG Sede Secondaria Italiana v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 96 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (d)(l)-(6). . In a related question, BBSSI asked whether BBAG was the third party that the Corps believed controlled both BBH and BBSSI.”

Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. West, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (d)(2) provides that when an agency debriefs an offeror, the agency must disclose "the overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices), and technical rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past performance…”

Ravens Grp., Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 390 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “The DIA also offered debriefings to disappointed offerors, pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 15.506 . See e.g. AR at 586. B.”

Essex Electro Engineers, Inc. v. United States Sec'y of the Army, 686 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2010). “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (e). In fact, one of the FOIA exemptions explicitly included in FAR § 15.”

Starside Sec. & Investigation, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). · cites it 2× “4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the required debriefing provision ( 48 C.F.R. § 15.506 ) did not apply, see Ex.”

Essex Electro Engineers, Inc. v. United States Sec'y of the Army (D.D.C. 2010). “" 48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (e). In fact, one of the FOIA exemptions explicitly included in FAR § 15.”

— 48 C.F.R. § 15.506(d)(2) — 1 case

MCI Worldcom, Inc. v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 163 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2001). “503 (b)(iv-v)(b)(v) (“In no event shall an offeror’s cost breakdown, profit, overhead rates, trade secrets, manufacturing processes and techniques, or other confidential business information be disclosed to any other offeror”); 48 C.F.R. § 15.506 (“the debriefing shall not…”

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.