DL 305 — Negotiations
The human course. You will learn negotiation as a discipline, not a personality: prepare a position, understand the other side's interests, and bargain inside the rules — in the federal acquisition process, in teaming, and in the post-award world.
Course number: DL 305 · Credit hours: 3 · Term: 14 weeks, one 75-minute session per week (plus independent reading and assignments) · Audience: junior undergraduates · Prerequisites: DL 220 (may be co-requisite) · Tier: upper-division elective (Year 3) · Texts: this repository — the doctrine, the literacy maps, and real published solicitations · Tools: none required beyond paper and a role-play partner. Stack-agnostic by design (doctrine/08).
Doctrine spine
doctrine/04 (the gate as a decision) and doctrine/05 (price-to-win as a position) form the spine, supported by doctrine/02 (the discussions and final-proposal-revision phase of a competition) and doctrine/07 (the post-submission world of debriefs and negotiation). The course teaches negotiation concepts — positions vs. interests, BATNA, the zone of possible agreement, concessions, and integrity — at altitude, applicable to federal acquisition, teaming, and any commercial negotiation.
Where this course sits in the program
This is the human elective: the place where the doctrine's arithmetic (DL 220) meets actual people. It serves students heading into capture, pricing, contracts, or business development — and it is the most transferable course in the catalog, because negotiation is a life skill the doctrine happens to sharpen.
Ladder: DL 220 (or co-req). Recommended pairing: DL 303. Feeds the capstone's defense and any post-award work.
Learning outcomes
By the end of this course, a student can:
- Explain negotiation as a prepared discipline, not an improvisation.
- Distinguish positions from interests and use interests to find a zone of possible agreement.
- Prepare a negotiation plan: objectives, BATNA, the zone, the concessions, the walk-away.
- Explain how negotiation appears inside a federal competition: written discussions, final proposal revisions, and the rules that bind the agency.
- Price a negotiation: where the price-to-win position leaves room to move, and where the floor is.
- Negotiate a teaming agreement: aligning on scope, share, risk, and commitment.
- Make and read concessions deliberately, and hold a position without burning the relationship.
- Apply the ethics of negotiation: honesty, no fabrication, no gaming the rules.
- Run a post-negotiation debrief and connect it to the learning loop.
How the course works
The course alternates between concept and practice. Every other week is a role-play: a federal discussions scenario, a teaming negotiation, a price negotiation, a post-award dispute. Each role-play is prepared in writing (the negotiation plan) and debriefed after. The midterm is a prepared role-play; the final is a full-case negotiation with a written plan and a reflection.
Weekly schedule
| Week | Theme | In-session (75 min) | Reading (doctrine / literacy) | Assignment due next week |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Negotiation as a discipline | Not a personality — a prepared process. What the doctrine already teaches about decisions. | doctrine/04 | One-page "what I think negotiation is" (pre-test, not graded) |
| 2 | Positions vs. interests | The position is what people say; the interest is why. The interests are where the deal lives. | doctrine/04 | A one-page interests map for a scenario you choose |
| 3 | BATNA and the zone | Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. The zone of possible agreement. | doctrine/04 | A one-page BATNA + ZOPA analysis for a given scenario |
| 4 | The negotiation plan | Objectives, BATNA, the zone, concessions, walk-away. Prepared before the room. | doctrine/04 | A written negotiation plan for a given scenario |
| 5 | Negotiation in a federal competition | Written discussions and final proposal revisions. The rules that bind the agency and the offeror. | doctrine/02; doctrine/04 | A one-page brief: how a federal competition negotiates, and the rules that govern it |
| 6 | Price negotiation | Where the price-to-win position leaves room to move, and where the floor is. | doctrine/05 | A one-page price-negotiation frame: the position, the floor, the room |
| 7 | Midterm | In class: a prepared role-play — federal discussions or a price negotiation — with a written plan and a debrief. | (review week) | Midterm submission |
| 8 | Teaming negotiation | Aligning scope, share, risk, and commitment with a partner. | doctrine/03 | A one-page teaming-negotiation plan: what each side wants, what each can give |
| 9 | Concessions and trade-offs | The deliberate concession: what to give, what to get, and in what order. | doctrine/04 | A one-page concession strategy for a scenario |
| 10 | Communication and influence | Listening, questioning, and the substance of credibility. | doctrine/08 | A one-page "what makes a negotiator credible" analysis |
| 11 | Ethics of negotiation | Honesty, no fabrication, no gaming. Why integrity is the winning long-run strategy. | doctrine/04 | A one-page ethics analysis of a realistic negotiation dilemma |
| 12 | The debrief and the learning loop | After the negotiation: the debrief, the lesson, the next round. | doctrine/07 | A one-page debrief plan for a negotiation you ran |
| 13 | Negotiation in the pipeline | Where negotiation appears across the pursuit: teaming, discussions, award, delivery. | doctrine/03 | A one-page map: negotiation moments in the pursuit pipeline |
| 14 | Final: full-case negotiation | A full prepared negotiation — plan, role-play, and reflection — presented and defended. | (review week) | Final submission |
Assessment summary
- Weekly assignments — 30% (plans, analyses, and briefs).
- Midterm — 25% (prepared role-play with a written plan and debrief).
- Final full-case negotiation — 30% (plan + role-play + reflection).
- Participation and peer review — 15%.
Rubric per course/assessments-and-rubric.md, with the additional standard that the plan matters as much as the performance: a well-prepared negotiator who holds the line earns more than a smooth talker who winging it.
The midterm
In class, a prepared role-play — a federal-discussions or price-negotiation scenario. You submit your negotiation plan in advance (objectives, BATNA, the zone, the concessions, the walk-away) and you are assessed on the plan, the performance, and the debrief. The panel plays the counterpart and pushes: "Why should I give you that? What is your walk-away? Prove your number."
The final
A full-case negotiation: a written plan, a role-play against the panel, and a written reflection connecting the outcome to the doctrine — where the gate discipline helped, where the interests were, and what the learning loop would capture. Presented and defended.
Policies worth stating plainly
- The doctrine is the course. Every assignment tests the concept, never a tool. If an assignment ever seems to require knowledge of a specific product or system, that is a bug in the assignment — flag it.
- Real contexts, safe exercises. Scenarios are drawn from the real federal process but are exercises; nothing is live.
- Late work. The pipeline has deadlines; so does the course. The one professional grace: an honest early warning beats a silent late submission.
- Academic integrity. Negotiation is where integrity is tested most. No fabricated authority, no invented numbers, no gaming of the scenario — the course grades the honest negotiator higher than the clever one.
The course in one sentence
By Week 14 you will be able to walk into any negotiation — a federal discussion, a teaming call, a price talk — with a plan, a floor, and a walk-away, and you will have learned that the strongest negotiating position in the federal market is a reputation for honesty.