TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-100.jpg

Framework of Pre and Post-Award Notifications and Debriefings in Negotiated Procurements

Notifications and debriefings provided to offerors regarding the success or failure of their proposals play a key procedural role in negotiated procurements. For successful offerors, the contracting officer (CO) provides an executed contract or other such notice of award. Meanwhile, unsuccessful offerors receive notifications about their exclusion from award consideration and, if requested, debriefings that can provide valuable insight into why their proposals were not selected for award. Thus, pre and post-award notifications and debriefings play a vital role in promoting transparency and integrity of the procurement system. Accordingly, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires COs to provide timely notifications to offerors regarding the success or failure of their proposals. Pre-award notifications are provided to unsuccessful offerors when their proposal is excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from award consideration before the final award. On the other hand, post-award notifications are sent to both successful and unsuccessful offerors advising them of the award decision.

Notifications to Successful and Unsuccessful Offerors

When offerors are excluded from the competitive range before an award is made, FAR 15.503(a)(1) requires the CO to promptly notify them of their elimination in writing. The FAR requires such notifications to include mandatory information relevant to the acquisition while expressly prohibiting the disclosure of certain other types of information, such as privileged and confidential business and financial information of competing offerors. The pre-award notification must advise the unsuccessful offeror that the government will not consider proposal revisions and provide a supporting rationale or basis for the adverse decision. For offerors in the competitive range that were not selected for award or offerors that did not receive a pre-award unsuccessful offer notification, the CO must provide a written post-award notification within three days of the contract award. Pursuant to FAR 15.503(b), this notification must include the following information:

  • The number of offerors solicited.
  • The number of proposals received.
  • The name and address of each successful offeror.
  • The items, quantities, and unit prices for each award. If listing unit prices is impractical – the total contract price.
  • The reason the offeror’s proposal was unsuccessful, unless the reason is readily apparent from the price information provided.

Debriefings to Unsuccessful Offerors

FAR 15.505(a)(3) makes it clear that offerors are only entitled to receive one debriefing for each proposal they submit. Thus, depending on the type of procurement at issue, unsuccessful offerors may be entitled to receive a pre or post-award debriefing in addition to the notification of unsuccessful offer.

Pre-Award Debriefings

To request a pre-award debriefing, a contractor must send a written request for a debriefing to the CO within three days of receiving the unsuccessful offer notification eliminating them from the competitive range. The procuring agency may refuse a pre-award debriefing for compelling reasons, provided that the supporting rationale for the delay is documented in the contract file and that the debriefing is eventually provided by the time post-award debriefings are concluded. Pre-award debriefings must, at a minimum, include the procuring agency’s evaluation of the significant elements of the unsuccessful offeror’s proposal. Additionally, pre-award debriefings must include a summary of the rationale or basis for eliminating the unsuccessful offeror from the competition. Finally, during pre-award debriefings, the procuring agency must provide reasonable responses to relevant questions raised by the unsuccessful offeror as to whether the government followed source selection procedures and applicable procurement rules and regulations in making the adverse decision.

Post-Award Debriefings

Post-award debriefings must be requested within three days of receiving notice of unsuccessful offer. Whenever practicable, procuring agencies must provide post-award debriefings to unsuccessful offerors within five days of receiving the written request for a debrief. FAR 15.506(d) mandates that post-award debriefings include the following information:

  • If applicable, the government’s evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the unsuccessful offeror’s proposal.
  • If applicable, the overall evaluated cost or price and technical rating of the successful offeror compared to that of the debriefed offeror.
  • Past performance information on the unsuccessful offeror being debriefed.
  • Overall ranking of all offerors.
  • A summary of the rationale or basis for the award decision.
  • For commercial item acquisitions, the make and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror.
  • Reasonable responses to relevant questions regarding the government’s adherence to source selection procedures and applicable procurement rules and regulations.

Restrictions on Disclosure of Information During Debriefings

There are restrictions on the government’s disclosure of certain types of information in both pre and post-award debriefings. In pre-award debriefings, agencies are expressly prohibited from disclosing the number or ranking of other offerors. Additionally, the content or evaluation of other offerors’ proposals may not be discussed, along with any other information, the disclosure of which would be prohibited in a post-award debriefing. While unsuccessful offerors receive more information in a post-award debriefing than in a pre-award debriefing, restrictions on disclosure of certain types of information still apply. During post-award debriefings, the government may not disclose trade secrets, privileged or confidential manufacturing processes or techniques, or confidential commercial or financial information, including breakdowns of cost elements, indirect rates, profits, etc. The government may also not disclose the names of the individuals providing an offeror’s past performance reference information, along with any other information, the disclosure of which would be prohibited under applicable law or regulation.

Information obtained from notifications and debriefings can help unsuccessful offerors identify potential bid protest grounds. While COs may sometimes accommodate late requests for debriefings, unsuccessful offerors should make timely requests for debriefings to adequately preserve their bid protest options. When unsuccessful offerors anticipate filing a bid protest at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), they should request a pre-award debriefing when first available, as the “debriefing exception” may impact their ability to file a timely protest at the GAO. However, in procurements where the unsuccessful offeror does not expect to file a bid protest at the GAO due to a business decision or other reasons, the offeror may benefit from opting to receive a post-award debriefing, which provides additional information and context about the adverse decision. Finally, contractors participating in FAR 8.4 federal supply schedule (FSS) procurements should be mindful that they are not entitled to a debriefing but rather a “brief explanation” which may be provided with the initial notification of unsuccessful offer and impact their ability to file a timely GAO bid protest.

Pre and post-award notifications and debriefings provide offerors valuable insight into their proposals and the procurement process. Thus, contractors should make timely requests for debriefings upon receiving the notification of unsuccessful offer, as the government is not required to provide a debriefing in the absence of such a request. While debriefings may be conducted orally, in writing, or in any other way the CO deems acceptable, contractors should be aware that a summary of the debriefing is always included in the contract file. To ensure the effectiveness of their debriefings, contractors should always request information they are entitled to and ask relevant questions regarding the government’s adherence to source selection procedures, applicable regulations, and evaluation criteria outlined in the solicitation. By understanding this framework and seeking counsel as soon as they receive the initial notification of unsuccessful offer, contractors can preserve their protest options while maximizing the effectiveness of their debriefings.

This Federal Procurement Insight is provided as a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.

Related Insights

TLF-Bid-Protest-Insight-7.jpg

For its bid protest function, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has strict timeliness rules for protest submissions. These timeliness rules are designed so that protestors may receive an effective and efficient resolution to their bid protests without unduly jeopardizing or delaying the procurement at issue. Protestors must file pre-award protests based on alleged improprieties in a solicitation before the time established for the receipt of proposals. Meanwhile, all other protests must generally be filed within ten calendar days of when the protestor knew or should have known about the basis of the protest. However, there is a debriefing exception to these general timeliness rules, which ensures contractors have an opportunity to understand the basis for their loss before deciding to protest. Under 4 C.F.R. § 21.2, this exception applies to procurements involving competitive proposals under which a debriefing is required and requested. The debriefing exception allows protestors to bring protests within 10 days of the required and requested debrief, therefore potentially extending the timeline under which a protest concerning competitive proposals may be brought at the GAO. The term “competitive proposals” is a term of art in government contracts parlance and is not expressly defined by statute or regulation. Competitive proposals involve negotiated procurement procedures that contemplate the creation of a competitive range of offerors before awarding the contract to the offeror that presents the most advantageous solution. Notably, the debriefing exception only applies to competitive proposals.

more
Proposal Timeliness Rules and Exceptions in Negotiated Procurements .jpg

In negotiated procurements, contractors must meet strict timeliness requirements when responding to the government’s requests for proposals (RFPs) or risk being excluded from consideration for an award. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 15.208 outlines the general rules for the timeliness of proposals in negotiated procurements, along with their relevant exceptions. Prospective contractors are responsible for submitting proposals in accordance with RFP instructions and ensuring that their proposals reach the designated agency office by the time specified in the solicitation. If the solicitation does not specify a time for receipt of proposals, FAR § 15.208(a) instructs offerors to submit their proposals by 4:30 PM local time for the designated agency office on the date the proposals are due. Proposals that are received at the designated agency office beyond the exact time specified for receipt of proposals are considered late and generally excluded from consideration of award. Also known in government contracts industry parlance as the “late is late” rule, the timeliness requirements for proposal submissions in negotiated procurements make it the contractor’s burden to ensure strict compliance.

more
Shutterstock_1788508130.jpg

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has strict timeliness rules for submission of bid protests. Under these timeliness rules, post-award protests must typically be filed no later than 10 days after the basis of the protest is known or should have been known, except when the debriefing exception applies. The debriefing exception, which does not apply to federal supply schedule (FSS) procurements, requires unsuccessful offerors to file their protests within 10 days of a required and requested debriefing. In General Services Administration (GSA) FSS procurements conducted under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, unsuccessful offerors are only entitled to a “brief explanation.” Due to the terms being somewhat similar, contractors may confuse the “brief explanation” contemplated under FAR subpart 8.4 with the required and requested “debriefing” of competitive proposals. Such confusion may prove problematic as it can cause an unsuccessful offeror to miss the 10-day deadline to file their post-award protest at the GAO.

In B-422881, a decision issued on September 12, 2024, the GAO dismissed such a protest as untimely, reminding the protestor of the distinction between a required and requested “debrief” and a “brief explanation” under FAR subpart 8.4. The Navy’s Military Sealift Command issued the relevant FSS Request for Quotation (RFQ) for lodging negotiation and management services, requiring vendors to provide multiple extended-stay studio rooms in Mobile, Alabama. The RFQ contemplated a lowest-priced technically acceptable (LPTA) award and required offerors to submit their quotations on or before August 8, 2024. The protestor was notified that its quotation was unsuccessful on August 13 via the GSA eBuy system. On August 16, the government provided the protestor with a “brief explanation,” as required under FAR subpart 8.4. In the brief explanation, the Navy advised the protestor that its quotation was evaluated as technically unacceptable and was therefore ineligible for award. The brief explanation also specifically noted that it was not a debrief.

more
TLF-Federal-Procurement-Insight-97.jpg

Under the Small Business Act and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, federal agencies must publish notices of proposed contract actions and modifications exceeding $25,000 on the System of Award Management (SAM) unless an exception listed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 5.202 applies. In other words, the government must publish all notices, which the FAR requires to be published via the governmentwide point of entry (GPE), SAM.gov. The SAM.gov GPE is the single point where contractors and the public can electronically access government business opportunities. Importantly, once the government publishes the synopses of a procurement action on SAM.gov, contractors are presumed to have “constructive notice” of the action. Under the doctrine of constructive notice, a party is imputed knowledge of a matter, even if it does not have actual knowledge of the matter at issue. Thus, as long as the government publishes the notice of an action via SAM.gov, contractors or interested offerors may not cite a lack of actual notice as prejudicial because they are presumed to have constructive notice of the published procurement action.

Thus, when an offeror fails to find or view a notice or a solicitation posted by the contracting officer (CO) on SAM.gov, that offeror is precluded by the presumption of constructive notice from subsequently filing a protest alleging it was denied a fair opportunity to compete. In B-416623, a small business contractor alleged that it was denied an opportunity to compete for a Department of Agriculture solicitation for the acquisition of foreclosure legal services and related technical support. In its protest filed at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the protestor contended that the government never provided it with a copy of the solicitation and it could not locate the solicitation on the FedBizOpps website, which was the GPE before SAM.gov. The protestor took the position that it diligently pursued the subject opportunity through the FedBizOpps website by signing up for automatic updates and performing regular searches for relevant key terms. However, despite its best efforts, the protestor was unable to find or view the solicitation and thus failed to respond in a timely manner. In applying the presumption, the GAO charged the contractor with constructive notice and rejected the protestor's argument that the government had denied it a fair opportunity to compete.

more

Framework of Pre and Post-Award Notifications and Debriefings in Negotiated Procurements

TILLIT LAW Federal Procurement Insights