How to Master the FAR Part 15 Overhaul: Win Smarter, Score Higher

The FAR Part 15 Overhaul has redrawn the blueprint for how the government evaluates, compares, and awards proposals. While the “best value” principle still drives federal contract awards, the rules for achieving it have changed. Under the new FAR Part 15, proposal success now depends on how well your team understands which source selection method applies, how evaluators score your proposal, and how the Source Selection Authority (SSA) documents the final decision.

In this blog, we break down what every proposal professional needs to know about the FAR Part 15 overhaul as it relates to technical proposal evaluations. The blog covers the government’s four competitive source selection approaches, how evaluators determine “best value,” and what documentation drives award justifications. You’ll also learn seven actionable takeaways to help you write stronger, more compliant, and higher-scoring proposals under FAR Part 15.

Four FAR Part 15 Proposal Evaluation Types

• Highest Technically Rated with a Fair & Reasonable Price (HTR-FRP) (15.103-3): The government uses HTR-FRP when it is willing to pay a price deemed fair and reasonable for the highest quality or “best value” performance. Under this approach, the government evaluates all proposals on the non-price factors identified in the request for proposals (RFP). The SSA then identifies the highest technically rated proposal. The price of that proposal is subsequently evaluated under FAR Subpart 15.4 to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. If the top-rated proposal’s price meets this standard, it is selected for award. If the price is not fair and reasonable, the SSA evaluates the next highest technically rated proposal, repeating the process until an award is made to the highest technically rated, responsible offeror whose price is fair and reasonable. When using this method, the RFP must clearly state that no tradeoffs will be made between price and non-price factors. It must also inform offerors that the government will select the highest technically rated proposal offering a fair and reasonable price for award.
• Phased Acquisition for Multi-Stage Down-Selects (15.103-4): Phased acquisitions divide the procurement into distinct stages, with separate awards made at each phase. This approach can shorten source selection timelines and increase flexibility by allowing the government to refine requirements between phases. When using a phased approach, the RFP must clearly define each phase of the acquisition, describe each stage’s evaluation process, and specify the criteria offerors must meet to advance to subsequent phases.
• Tradeoffs (15.103-1): The government uses this approach when it is in its best interest to consider an award to an offeror other than the lowest priced or highest technically rated offeror. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost or non-price factors. The anticipated benefits of a higher-priced proposal must merit the additional cost.
• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) with Guardrails (15.103-2): Thegovernment uses LPTA when it is in its best interest to award the contract to the offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and has the lowest evaluated price. This approach does not permit tradeoffs.

FAR Part 15.202 Proposal Evaluation Guidance

• Clarifications: The government requests clarifications to address ambiguities in the proposal, such as concerns about perceived deficiencies, weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes; the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information; and adverse past performance information. Clarifications do not permit offerors to revise their proposals. They cannot be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions or materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal.
• Oral Presentations: Contracting officers must maintain a record of oral presentations to document what the government relied upon in making the source selection decision. The method and level of detail of the record are at the discretion of the SSA. When an oral presentation includes information that the parties intend to include in the contract as material terms or conditions, the information must be put in writing and incorporated in the proposal and subsequent contract. Incorporation by reference of oral statements is not permitted.
• Technical Sections: When using the tradeoff approach, the government will assess each offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements. In addition, the government will evaluate the proposal using the rubric of relative strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks. FAR Part 15.100 defines weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, while FAR Part 15 defines risk throughout its subparts.
• Past Performance Sections: Clarifies that the lack of past performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. If the government is using an LPTA source selection process, it only needs to determine whether the performance is technically acceptable. FAR Part 15 indicates the government must:
  • Evaluate the offeror’s past performance, as well as information obtained from other sources.
• • Rate the currency and relevance of the information, as well as the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance.
• • Evaluate any information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.
• • Evaluate the past performance of the joint venture (JV). If the JV does not demonstrate past performance for the award, the past performance of each party to the joint venture is considered.
• • Evaluate the past performance of small businesses in an LPTA bid, but if the government determines their past performance is unacceptable, the matter must be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a Certificate of Competency determination.
  • Document the reasonableness of the awarded price in accordance with Subpart 15.4.

FAR Part 15.205 Documentation Requirements for Source Selection Decisions

The source selection decision must represent the SSA’s independent judgment and be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the RFP. The source selection decision must be documented and include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. The documentation does not need to quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.

Seven Key Takeaways About FAR Part 15 Guidance

1. Know Which Source Selection Method You’re Competing Under: Proposal managers must quickly identify the source selection method. For example, a tradeoff emphasizes measurable strengths and justifies a higher value for contracting officers. When using HTR-FRP, the proposal manager must ensure the proposal maximizes technical excellence, because price won’t help if you’re not top-rated.
2. Build Proposals Around Evaluation Factors, Not Generic Templates: Evaluators score strictly against the factors and subfactors listed in the RFP. Proposal sections should mirror those factors word-for-word to verify every requirement is explicitly addressed. Boilerplate language and unlinked content risk being ignored or downgraded.
3. Treat Clarifications as a One-Time Chance to Survive, Not Revise: Clarifications allow you to fix ambiguities, not deficiencies or omissions. Proposal managers must ensure their proposals are clearly written and contain concise, factual responses. If the government requests clarifications, poorly written or vague responses carry a higher risk of elimination.
4. Manage Oral Presentations as Scored, Recordable Evidence: FAR 15.202(a)(3) now requires a documented record of oral presentations. Evaluators can only rely on what’s recorded in writing. Proposal teams must rehearse presentations with the same rigor as written volumes, verify all commitments made during orals are in the written proposal, and deliver quotable, evaluable strengths the SSA can cite in the source selection decision.
5. Strengthen the Past Performance Narrative with Teamwide Coverage: Evaluators must evaluate JVs and consider past performance from predecessor firms, key personnel, and major subcontractors. Proposal managers should curate past performance sections that highlight relevance, recency, and positive outcomes; include subcontractor and key personnel performance; and prepare for SBA review if small business past performance is deemed unacceptable.
6. Make Every Strength Defensible in the Source Selection Decision: The revised FAR 15.205 requires the SSA to justify awards based on a comparative assessment and document the rationale for tradeoffs—without quantifying them. Proposal managers must use clear, evaluator-ready “benefit statements” that show why each strength matters, link strengths directly to mission or operational outcomes, and avoid vague or subjective claims that the SSA can’t cite in the written justification.
7. Write for Efficiency: Phased acquisitions and streamlined evaluations emphasize speed and flexibility. The government may refine requirements between phases or limit competitive ranges to save time. Proposal teams must submit fully evaluable proposals on the first try, assuming no second chance to clarify or revise.

Conclusion

The FAR Part 15 Overhaul doesn’t change the government’s focus on awarding contracts based on best value, but it fundamentally reshapes how that value is evaluated, documented, and justified. The new guidance emphasizes clarity, precision, and traceability—not only in how the government evaluates proposals but also in how offerors must develop them.

In this new environment, proposal excellence is no longer optional; it’s the key to survival. Strength-Based Winning^® techniques from Lohfeld Consulting can help your team align with the new FAR requirements, craft high-scoring proposals, and position your company for success. Take the next step by enrolling in Lohfeld Consulting’s Strength-Based Winning^® class or schedule a private training session for your team to master the new rules of proposal development under the new FAR Overhaul.

Relevant Information

• The Overview: How to Survive and Thrive Under FAR Changes

• Far Part 1 Changes
• FAR Part 6 Changes
• FAR Part 10 Changes
• FAR Part 11 Changes
• FAR Part 18 Changes
• FAR Part 34 Changes
• FAR Part 39 Changes
• FAR Part 43 Changes

By Brenda Crist, Vice President at Lohfeld Consulting Group, MPA, CPP APMP Fellow

Lohfeld Consulting Group has proven results specializing in helping companies create winning captures and proposals. As the premier capture and proposal services consulting firm focused exclusively on government markets, we provide expert assistance to government contractors in Capture Planning and Strategy, Proposal Management and Writing, Capture and Proposal Process and Infrastructure, and Training. In the last 3 years, we’ve supported over 550 proposals winning more than $170B for our clients—including the Top 10 government contractors. Lohfeld Consulting Group is your “go-to” capture and proposal source! Start winning by contacting us at www.lohfeldconsulting.com and join us on LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube^(TM).