1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Request For Clarification Amounts To Discussions

Request For Clarification Amounts To Discussions

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.04.06

In University of Dayton Research Institute (June 15, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/2969466.pdf), the GAO found that an agency's request for vendors to clarify certain discrepancies in their proposed rate tables constituted discussions because the proposal discrepancies were so material that the agency could not conduct a price evaluation without the clarifications and the corrections resulted in significant changes to the proposed prices. As a consequence, GAO held that the agency was required to conduct meaningful discussions with all offerors in the competitive range, which it had not done with the protester.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 08.21.26

FTC Proposes Enforcement Policy Statement on Personalized Pricing: What Businesses Need to Know

On August 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed Enforcement Policy Statement on personalized pricing — the practice of companies using consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices, discounts, coupons, or other incentives. The proposed statement, which is open for public comment for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register, marks a major step up in the FTC’s focus on data-driven pricing strategies and puts businesses across industries on notice that undisclosed or inadequately disclosed personalized pricing will not be tolerated. Importantly, while the proposed statement is not a binding legal requirement and does not create new legal obligations, it serves as an enforcement warning that the FTC is prepared to use its existing enforcement authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act (Section 5) and is also a potential harbinger of rulemaking. Businesses that engage in — or are considering — personalized pricing should carefully assess their disclosure practices and data collection procedures against the standards articulated in this statement....