When do an agency’s communications with an offeror amount to a clarification, and when do they cross the line into a discussion? That’s exactly what this post will discuss and, hopefully, clarify for you. Understanding the distinction between clarifications and discussions is important because the type of communication an agency has with an offeror can affect an offeror’s ability to address issues or make changes to their proposal. A recent GAO decision explores the difference between clarifications and discussions and offers insight into when each type of communication may be appropriate.
In ProteQ, B-424419.2 (Comp. Gen. July 24, 2026), GAO denied ProteQ’s protest challenging the Navy’s finding that ProteQ’s proposal was ineligible because it failed to include its corporate policy for resolving organizational conflicts of interest (OCI).
Under the Request for Proposals (RFP), the Navy would evaluate proposals using a best value approach based on three main factors: technical, past performance, and cost. The RFP also included a contract documentation factor, requiring offerors to submit an OCI mitigation plan that would be evaluated pass/fail.
Specifically, the RFP stated “Offerors shall submit a statement in affirmation or negation whether they have an OCI . . . regarding this solicitation. If OCI issues are present or anticipated, [o]fferors shall provide details and submit an OCI mitigation plan and its corporate policy for resolving . . . . If it is believed that no conflicts of interest exist, then the [o]fferor shall clearly state this, in addition to providing their corporate policy for resolving OCIs.”
Further, the RFP noted that a proposal would be ineligible for award and eliminated from further consideration if an offeror failed to meet any of the pass/fail requirements. The RFP explicitly stated that “The Government reserves the right to not evaluate other proposal volumes . . . if [an] [o]fferor is assigned a ‘fail’ adjectival rating under [the contract documentation factor].”
After evaluating ProteQ’s proposal, the Navy assigned ProteQ a rating of “fail” under the contract documentation factor for three reasons: (1) the “fill-ins” were not completed, (2) the corporate policy for resolving OCIs was not included, and (3) one of the proposed subcontractors did not provide an affirmative statement that it had no organizational conflicts of interest. As a result, the Navy did not evaluate ProteQ’s proposal under the technical, past performance, and cost factors, and ProteQ’s proposal was eliminated from consideration.
ProteQ argued that the Navy should have let ProteQ address the missing information through clarifications. Given the language of the solicitation, GAO noted that “to make its proposal acceptable, the protester would have had to revise its proposal to provide the required policy.” GAO further explained that this would constitute a material change to ProteQ’s proposal, so the agency would have had to conduct discussions rather than clarifications to allow ProteQ to revise its proposal. But what is the difference between clarifications and discussions?
Clarifications are “limited exchanges, between the Government and offerors, that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.” FAR 15.306(a)(1). Generally, “offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.” FAR 15.306(a)(2). Conversely, discussions are “exchanges in either a competitive or sole source environment, between the Government and offerors that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the offeror to revise its proposal.” FAR 15.306(d)(1). To learn more about the spectrum of agency communications, check out one of our previous blog posts here (which also discusses some changes to these terms made by the RFO).
So, what does this mean in practice? Clarifications are typically more informal and are generally used to allow offers to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or resolve minor or otherwise immaterial errors. An agency cannot use clarifications to allow an offeror to cure a material proposal deficiency or make substantive revisions to their proposal. That is what discussions are for. Unlike clarifications, discussions can be used by an agency to allow offerors to make material revisions to proposals and provide material information that could impact the acceptability of the offeror’s proposal.
In ProteQ, the RFP specifically instructed each offeror to include a copy of its corporate policy for resolving organizational conflicts of interest, even if the offeror believed that no such conflict existed. ProteQ failed to include its policy in its proposal. As a result, ProteQ would have needed to revise its proposal to add the policy and satisfy the requirements of the RFP. Clarifications would not be sufficient to allow such a material revision.
Further, the RFP stated that the Navy “reserve[d] the right to award a task order without discussions with respective [o]fferors.” Accordingly, the Navy was not obligated to conduct discussions. Ultimately, GAO found that “the agency’s determination that the protester’s proposal was ineligible for award for failure to include the protester’s corporate policy for resolving OCIs was reasonable and consistent with the RFP.”
At first, the distinction between clarifications and discussions may seem confusing. However, this decision helps shed light on the difference between the two and provides useful guidance for contractors navigating the proposal process. If nothing else, it serves as an important reminder to read the solicitation before submitting a proposal and to make sure that all required information and documentation are included. Taking the time to understand and follow the solicitation requirements can help avoid any issues that may be difficult or impossible to correct later.
Questions about this post? Email us. Need legal assistance? Call us at 785-200-8919.
Looking for the latest government contracting legal news? Sign up for our free monthly newsletter, and follow us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook