RFO 15.204, Establishing a competitive range, paragraph (a), states:

a) Competitive range. A competitive range is the group of evaluated proposals that the contracting officer determines are best suited for further negotiation. Contracting officers must establish a competitive range if negotiations will occur after evaluating competitive proposals.

Emphasis added.

Why "group"?

While in English usage it is technically possible to have a "group" of one, to the average reader the word suggests two or more. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th ed., defines group as follows:

An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the road. A set of two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture. A number of individuals or things considered or a classed together because of similarities: a small group of supporters across the country.

In other words, to the average reader a group consists of more than one thing.

But 10 U.S.C. 3703 states:

(a) Evaluation and award.--The head of an agency shall evaluate competitive proposals in accordance with section 3301(a) of this title and may award a contract--

(1) after discussions with the offerors, provided that written or oral discussions have been conducted with all responsible offerors who submit proposals within the competitive range; or

(2) based on the proposals received, without discussions with the offerors (other than discussions conducted for the purpose of minor clarification) provided that the solicitation included a statement that proposals are intended to be evaluated, and award made, without discussions, unless discussions are determined to be necessary.

(b) Limit on number of proposals.--If the contracting officer determines that the number of offerors that would otherwise be included in the competitive range under subsection (a)(1) exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range, in accordance with the criteria specified in the solicitation, to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the offerors rated most highly in accordance with such criteria.

41 U.S.C. § 3703 says the same.

Nothing in the statutes indicates that the competitive range necessarily includes more than one offeror.

And we know from several GAO protest decisions that under the right circumstances a CO may establish a competitive range of one. See, e.g., S2 Analytical Solutions, LLC, B- 422281.3 (Comp.Gen.), 2024 CPD P 312, 2024 WL 5212720, Dec. 20, 2024:

The solicitation provision at issue here contemplates a situation that is analogous to the situation described above--where, in a FAR part 15 procurement, an agency establishes a competitive range of one and conducts exchanges with only that offeror. We have determined that an agency may reasonably establish a competitive range of one and then conduct exchanges with only that offeror, so long as the agency otherwise reasonably excluded other offerors from the competitive range on the basis that their proposals were not the most highly rated. See, e.g., Sigmatech, Inc., B-419565 et al., May 7, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 241 at 29-30.

There are many situations in which negotiations with only one clearly superior offeror is more efficient than negotiating with more than one, which can be complicated and time-consuming. So why couldn't an agency state in its RFP:

After evaluation of proposals we will establish a competitive range consisting of one or more offerors with which to negotiate to final agreement on terms and award the contract on the basis of negotiated value.

So... Instead of saying, "A competitive range is "the group" of evaluated proposals... " Wouldn't it be better if the RFO said, "A competitive range consists of one or more of the evaluated proposals..."?

What do you think?

8 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

So... Instead of saying, "A competitive range is "the group" of evaluated proposals... " Wouldn't it be better if the RFO said, "A competitive range consists of one or more of the evaluated proposals..."?

Yes, definitely better to say “a competitive range consists of one or more…” I can see potential conflicts when a contracting officer establishes a competitive range of one but legal and policy advisors say a “group” is more than one.

I’ve heard people in oversight and policy roles over the years say don’t only have one source in the competitive range. The rational is if you fail to reach agreement or the single source refuses to extend their offer, the procurement is dead. That seemed to be a prevalent belief at some agencies. Perhaps that notion got carried over with the RFO drafters.

On 4/4/2026 at 9:11 AM, Vern Edwards said:

RFO 15.204, Establishing a competitive range, paragraph (a), states:

Emphasis added.

Why "group"?

While in English usage it is technically possible to have a "group" of one, to the average reader the word suggests two or more. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th ed., defines group as follows:

In other words, to the average reader a group consists of more than one thing.

But 10 U.S.C. 3703 states:

Nothing in the statutes indicates that the competitive range necessarily includes more than one offeror.

And we know from several GAO protest decisions that under the right circumstances a CO may establish a competitive range of one. See, e.g., S2 Analytical Solutions, LLC, B- 422281.3 (Comp.Gen.), 2024 CPD P 312, 2024 WL 5212720, Dec. 20, 2024:

There are many situations in which negotiations with only one clearly superior offeror is more efficient than negotiating with more than one, which can be complicated and time-consuming. So why couldn't an agency state in its RFP:

After evaluation of proposals we will establish a competitive range consisting of one or more offerors with which to negotiate to final agreement on terms and award the contract on the basis of negotiated value.

So... Instead of saying, "A competitive range is "the group" of evaluated proposals... " Wouldn't it be better if the RFO said, "A competitive range consists of one or more of the evaluated proposals..."?

What do you think?

Yes.

Agreed Vern on all fronts. The FAR Council should have included the phrase "one or more" instead of "group" to alleviate confusion and ambiguity. This could lead to more challenges at GAO or CoFC on the language itself and both venues will have to draw the line in the sand in either a) relying on the precedential value as established in cases such as S2 Analytical Solutions, LLC and possibly making a clear interpretation as to what the FAR Council intended when doing the RFO re-write (if addressed in a protest), or b) go against standing precedent, relying on the new RFO 15.204, and turning the contracting world upside down on what it means to establish a competitive range related to the number of offerors. Getting my popcorn ready...

Me too. Butter on the popcorn?

16 hours ago, ContractLaw7415 said:

Getting my popcorn ready

@ContractLaw7415 Me too. Butter on the popcorn?