CPD 11199 at 2, 1984 WL 46537 (1984); see also Dynacs Eng’g Co., Inc. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 124, 131 (2000) (discussions must be meaningful and equal); Biospherics, Inc. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 1, 9 (2000) (“discussions should be as specific as practical considerations permit” regarding areas needing correction); Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 43 Fed.Cl. 410, 422 (1999), ajfd, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed.Cir.2000). While an agency has considerable discretion in conducting discussions with offerors, that discretion is not a license to mislead an offeror when the Government knows that an offeror’s interpretation of the RFP is contrary, in a material way, to its own interpretation and that of a successful offeror. Cf. ACRA v. United States, 44 Fed.Cl. 288, 295-96 (1999) (<HOLDING>) The lack of clarity in the RFP, the
holding that a draft of a proposed letter from an area director of a government agency to a municipal administrative agency was properly excluded because it did not represent an agency finding holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency in the first instance to address holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review holding that an agency was not required to hold discussions with an offeror about the possibility of using a phased implementation approach for project completion where the solicitation had expressly advised offerors that the agency desired maximum acceleration of performance  while minimizing disruptiondowntime holding that when an agency has not reached an issue the proper course is to remand to the agency to address in the first instance