Why have both proposal and offer? Isn't it an offer that is being requested via a solicitation?

"Offer" A definitive promise to enter into a legally binding contract with specific terms. An offer implies an immediate willingness to be bound upon acceptance.

"Clarification" is the act of making an offer clearer or easier to understand by providing additional explanation, details, or interpretation, without changing the terms of the offer.

"Negotiation" is a consensual bargaining process of an offer in which the parties attempt to reach agreement on the terms of a final contract. This includes deliberation, discussion, or conference upon the terms of a offer submitted that will result in a revision to an original offer.

5 hours ago, C Culham said:

Isn't it an offer that is being requested via a solicitation?

An offer (a promise or set of promises) and information (e.g., about the offeror and the composition of its price).

The go together in a package called a proposal.

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

The go together in a package called a proposal.

I made the comment as it seems like the rewrite definition of offer at FAR Part 2 does not make such a distinction. Throwing in "proposal" confuses what government really gets.

An interesting dialog from a couple years ago

11 hours ago, formerfed said:

An interesting dialog from a couple years ago

Thank you.

My initial comment was a quick thought based on the dialog of the podcast regarding offer versus proposal. To be sure I understand the difference being portrayed in the podcast discussion. Likewise in the now reference case. Both of which has caused me further research and continued thinking.

First in the light of 41 USC 4702(a) (see below) the FAR has complicated definition and intent when it comes to FAR Part 15 procurements. FAR part 15 takes the "or" from the statute and makes it an "and" by requiring cost or price information be in a proposal. As exhibited by the case reference one agency attempted to separate and found themselves in a dilemma and rightly so.

In another example of the confusion is this. The FAR wants to call it a Request for Proposals (RFP) but in truth shouldn't it be either a RFP "OR" a Request for Offers. This example is best demonstrated by FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4) where in its unaltered state a proposal submitted government’s acceptance of it would create a binding contract. Actually an "offer". Yet as allowed by the alternates to the clause it is stated that discussions will occur ergo a "proposal". Come on which one is it!

So turning back to the podcast and the referenced case law no wonder there is confusion. Especially by my read of the case provided that is interestingly void of any reference to the conditions of the solicitation such as a clause like 52.215-1 and leans on references of the FAR itself. And the same goes to the absence of any reference to 41 USC 4702, along with 41 USC 3703 and/or 2101.

All said I will circle back to my initial post. Forget it! Now I would echo a thought posed in the podcast. The FAR should be written like this.

A Request for Proposals should be handled like that of what occurs for an A-E need currently and it would seem doing so is supported by statute.

A Request for Offers (RFO) should be handled exactly as stated by FAR 52.215-1 (along with FAR 15.304?) in its unaltered form. I might even add here that it would seem many, many procurements today would fall into the RFO process.

All in all it would seem that the dilemma between offer and proposal is like pounding the square peg into the round hole when there are to really two pegs, a round one and a square one.

"41 USC 4702(a) In this section, the term “proposal” means a proposal, including a technical, management, or cost proposal, submitted by a contractor in response to the requirements of a solicitation for a competitive proposal."

Just finished watching. A couple of initial thoughts.

1. Regarding the drafters' mandate, the E.O. requires them to remove text, but does not explicitly authorize them to create new policy:

Sec. 4.  Reforming the Federal Acquisition Regulation.  Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Administrator, in coordination with the other members of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), the heads of agencies, and appropriate senior acquisition and procurement officials from agencies, shall take appropriate actions to amend the FAR to ensure that it contains only provisions that are required by statute or that are otherwise necessary to support simplicity and usability, strengthen the efficacy of the procurement system, or protect economic or national security interests.

(Emphasis added.) The OMB guidance memo echoes this and introduces the concept of the buying guides as a means of sharing optimal processes and techniques. The goal may be "faster acquisitions, greater competition, and better results," but it doesn't appear to me that the drafters were invited to innovate.

2. Regarding the "equal amount of time" proposal revision rule (RFO 15.204-2(d)(2)), the question of how the GAO and courts define "equal" could be interesting. For example, if an agency gives one offeror from 9:00 a.m. Monday to 5:00 p.m. the following Monday to submit revisions, but gives another offeror from 5:00 p.m. Monday to 5:00 p.m. next Monday, are these periods "equal" in length? If not, what would be a permissible deviation in the number of minutes or hours each offeror has? What happens if the CO clicks "send" on an email at exactly the same time for both offerors, but there's a significant difference between when the emails appear in each offeror's inbox?
   
   I imagine the RFO might add text to attempt to avoid questions over these scenarios.

@Don Mansfield Towards the end of the podcast you state you're looking for a word to describe the FAR Part 15 "competitive" negotiations process - I think the appropriate word is "begging" (e.g. we send evaluation notices asking offerors to improve/revise an aspect of their proposal/offer) which contrasts nicely to what we should be doing, and as Vern notes we do under the A&E process, which is "bargaining."

On 11/5/2025 at 11:09 AM, Matthew Fleharty said:

@Don Mansfield Towards the end of the podcast you state you're looking for a word to describe the FAR Part 15 "competitive" negotiations process - I think the appropriate word is "begging" (e.g. we send evaluation notices asking offerors to improve/revise an aspect of their proposal/offer) which contrasts nicely to what we should be doing, and as Vern notes we do under the A&E process, which is "bargaining."

I didn't like "begging", so I searched for a better word. I came up with "auctioning." Specifically, I think the Government is conducting something similar to a blind multi-attribute reverse auction. ChatGPT describes such an auction as:

"A blind multi-attribute reverse auction is a specialized procurement method in which:

• “Reverse” means suppliers compete to offer the lowest-cost (or best-value) proposal to a buyer (not the other way around).

• “Blind” means bidders cannot see competitors’ offers—they only know their own submissions.

• “Multi-attribute” means the competition is not based on price alone—other factors such as delivery time, technical quality, warranty, or past performance are also evaluated according to a pre-defined scoring model."

Sound familiar?