According to the GAO, an offeror may revise its price as part of a final proposal revision, unless the procuring agency expressly limits the scope of proposal revisions.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency properly accepted the awardee’s revised price because agency had not limited the scope of discussions so as to exclude price revisions.
In discussions, a procuring agency is not required to explicitly inform an offeror that its proposal contains a significant weakness, so long as the agency sufficiently identifies the area of concern.
In a recent bid protest decision, the GAO held that the agency had adequately informed the offeror of the agency’s concerns, even though the agency did not specifically identify those concerns as a “significant weakness.”
I don’t have a tag for “bad grounds for a GAO bid protest,” but if I did, challenging an agency’s decision not to conduct discussions would fall in that category–at least (as is typically the case), when the solicitation does not state that discussions will be conducted.
This issue comes up often enough in GAO bid protest decisions (with the same predictable result nearly every time) that it’s worth taking a quick look at one such recent case in which this particular issue arose.