Proposed Part 15 Rewrite Replaces Discussions with Negotiations and Narrows What Counts as a Deficiency

What changed

FAR Case 2026-003 (Docket No. FAR-2026-0003, RIN 9000-AO88, 91 FR 59406) was published on 18 September 2026 and would rewrite FAR Parts 8, 12, 13, 15, 38, 44, 51 and 52. Comments are due 19 October 2026. The Part 15 changes are the substantial ones.

The rule would move from discussions to negotiations, and would allow a contracting officer to hold more than one negotiation with a particular offeror in the competitive range without doing so with every other offeror. It would redefine "deficiency" as a part of a proposal that does not conform to a material term of the RFP, with a material term being one that affects price, quantity, quality or delivery, or a prerequisite the RFP requires be met at the time of proposal submission. The current combination-of-significant-weaknesses test would go.

It would eliminate the process for exchanging information with offerors before establishing the competitive range, expand clarifications to competitive negotiated acquisitions, and permit clarifications at any time up until award, while barring their use to revise a proposal, change material elements or cure a material omission. The competitive range would no longer have to contain all of the most highly rated proposals; it would include those best suited for further negotiation, and "highest rated" would become "highest evaluated" when the range is reduced for efficiency.

The rule would also formally recognize two approaches: award to the highest technically rated proposal at a fair and reasonable price, with no tradeoffs between price and non-price factors, and phased or down-select evaluations. Separately, it would add munitions response services to the services that should avoid a lowest price technically acceptable approach at FAR 15.102-2(c)(2)(i), implementing section 822 of the FY2025 NDAA (Pub. L. 118-159).

Why it matters for estimating and pricing

The highest technically rated approach changes what a price has to do. Under a tradeoff, price competes against technical merit and a well-supported premium can win. Under the proposed approach the contracting officer identifies the highest technically rated proposal first and then asks only whether its price is fair and reasonable; if it is not, the next proposal is examined. Price stops being a scoring variable and becomes a pass or fail gate, which puts the weight on the price reasonableness narrative rather than on margin optimization.

The deficiency redefinition is the other one to note. Tying materiality to price, quantity, quality and delivery means a pricing inconsistency is squarely a deficiency, while a technical weakness that does not touch those four is not. That is a narrower and more predictable exclusion test than the current one.

What the rule does not do is rework subpart 15.4. The preamble's summary of Part 15 changes is about source selection mechanics, and the paperwork discussion states that the collection covering 15.407-2(e) and the 52.215 clauses would remain unchanged. Certified cost or pricing data mechanics are not the target of this rule. It is a proposed rule and none of it is in effect.

Primary sources

Federal Acquisition Regulation: Revolutionary FAR Overhaul Parts 8, 12, 13, 15, 38, 44, and 51, 91 FR 59406 (18 September 2026), FR document 2026-19162. Section 822 of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, Pub. L. 118-159. Executive Order 14275, Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement.