You say potato and I say potatoe. The agency says "clarifications" and the protestor says "discusssions." In TDS, Inc., B-292674, GAO says, "discussions":

We find, despite the agency's characterization of the exchanges, that discussions occurred here. [3] The FAR anticipates “dialogue among the parties” in the course of an oral presentation, FAR § 15.102(a), and we see nothing improper in agency personnel expressing their view about vendors' quotations or proposals, in addition to listening to the vendors' presentations, during those sessions. Once the agency personnel begin speaking, rather than merely listening, in those sessions, however, that dialogue may constitute discussions. As we have long held, the acid test for deciding whether an agency has engaged in discussions is whether the agency has provided an opportunity for quotations or proposals to be revised or modified. See, e.g., Priority One Servs., Inc., B‑288836, B-288836.2, Dec. 17, 2001, 2002 CPD ¶ 79 at 5. Accordingly, where agency personnel comment on, or raise substantive questions or concerns about, vendors' quotations or proposals in the course of an oral presentation, and either simultaneously or subsequently afford the vendors an opportunity to make revisions in light of the agency personnel's comments and concerns, discussions have occurred. See FAR § 15.102(g).

The late bid/proposal saga continues. First, I misspoke yesterday when I said late bid, it was really a late proposal. Thanks to those who caught it. As a follow-up, today's case discuuses very briefly the difference between a late bid and a late proposal, specically as to when actually is "late." In The Haskell Company, GAO denied a protest contending that the awardees proposal should have been rejected as late. GAO stated:

In the context of sealed bid procurements, the bid opening officer must decide when the time set for opening bids has arrived and must inform those present of that decision. FAR § 14.402-1(a). While bids received in the office designated in an invitation for bids after the exact time set for opening are late bids, FAR § 14.304(b)(1), the bid opening officer’s declaration of bid opening is determinative of lateness unless it is shown to be unreasonable under the circumstances. J.C. Kimberly Co., B‑288018.2, Feb. 8, 1994, 94-1 CPD ¶ 79 at 2. In the context of negotiated procurements, such as the one at issue here, there is, of course, no bid opening and thus no requirement that a government official announce when the time for receipt of submissions has arrived. However, just as we believe that it would have been reasonable for a government official, had this been a sealed bid acquistition, to announce bid opening at any point between 14:00:00 and 14:00:59, we believe that the RFP’s reference to a closing time of 14:00 hours could reasonably be interpreted either as requiring that proposals be received by 14:00:00, or as requiring that they be received by 14:00:59. To the extent that is viewed as an ambiguity in the solicitation, it was one that was obvious from the face of the RFP, and we have repeatedly held that an offeror who chooses to compete under a patently ambiguous solicitation does so at its peril and cannot later complain when the agency proceeds in a manner inconsistent with one of the possible interpretations. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., B‑276012.2, Sept. 1, 1998, 98‑2 CPD ¶ 75 at 5.

That must have been some last minute delivery where the courier got "bloodied."

More on late bids. Remember last time when GAO said okay to consider a bid received after bid opening time? Well in O.S. Systems, Inc., the GAO denied a protest and upheld the CO's rejection of a late bid. GAO found that: "Nevertheless, even in cases where the late receipt may have been caused, in part, by erroneous government action, a late proposal should not be considered if the offeror significantly contributed to the late receipt by not acting reasonably in fulfilling its responsibility to deliver a hand-carried proposal to the proper place by the proper time."

Mr. Robert Antonio, the owner of the WIFCON site, has written an excellent article on the use of fixed-price incentive (firm target) contracts (FPIF). The article explores the advantages and disadvantages to the government and the contractor in using this type of contract. I highly recommend the article.