Federal Acquisition Review (FAR) Part 15 � Negotiations states �Exchanges of information among all
interested parties, from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals, is
encouraged.� When planning a competitive solicitation, the agency must provide needed information in
order to develop a thorough request that takes into account the agency�s objectives for quality,
schedule, and costs.
Imagine that you are a contracts officer for the IRS, and your supervisor has tasked you with the
procurement of a new software system for processing tax returns.
Write a two to three (2-3) page paper in which you:
COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS 2
Proposal Title: Procurement of a New Software System for Processing Tax Returns
Proposal Adequacy Checklist
In the submission of a procurement proposal, it is significant that the PCO putts together
an efficient bid package that finalizes the contract. On the other hand, there is a need that the
PCO ensures that there is a check list developed to monitor and ensure that all the areas of the
contract are effectively covered and the pertinent information within the contract is included for
the contracting parties (Dolgui, & Proth, 2013). The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) plays
an integral role in the formation of contracts and is a regulatory body of law that ensures the U.S
Federal Government’s procurement process is governed.
This regulatory body was consequently established with the aim of simplifying the
complexities involved in the procurement process between government agencies (Benaroch,
Lichtenstein, & Fink, 2016). The central purpose of this body’s establishment is to ensure proper
provisions are made through a universal contracting and procurement system. The body therefore
helps in conducting assessments and monitoring functions on all the processes of procurement
through the development of guidelines that need to be adhered to.
Intrinsic Value of Two of the Suggestions in the Checklist:
The first item detailed in the checklist is under FAR 52.215-20, as provided in section
52.215-20 that requires the offeror to make a submission of an exception on the certified costs
and pricing data for the item contracted at either the prime or sub-contracting level. The second
value that is essential in the checklist is part #14, FAR 15.408 under Table 15-2. On the Section
2, under paragraph A, providing the services and materials section. In this case, as a PCO, it is
essential that all listings for the services and materials are included in the proposal since these are
the functions that will be billed (Dolgui, & Proth, 2013). In the checklist, the materials are
COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS 3
inferred to as Bill of Materials (BOM), with FAR refereeing to this listings are Consolidated Bill
of Materials (CBOM). As determined, the list of material and services in the checklist provide
adequate information on the summaries of parts, materials and services that are performed during
the contract period.
In this case, it can be justified that the two elements provided in the checklist serve as
essential in the procurement process since they determine the manner in which pricing structures
are placed on the services and materials contracted (Han, & Mithas, 2013). Price therefore
remains a significant element in the process since the government would want to engage vendors
who offer fair and reasonable prices. As detailed, the government reserves the right to assess the
price reasonableness and some of the pertinent information on the pricing data in order to
approve the contracting process.
Debate on the Offeree’s Intent When a Mistake is made in a Proposal by the Offeror
In accordance to FAR 14.407, there are likelihoods of having mistakes in the proposal,
mistakes may be corrected before or after the awarding of a contract has been done in any case
such a mistake is not identified during this period. However, some mistake may be considered as
simple since they are likely to result from clerical errors such as the placement of a decimal point
where it should not be put, a factor that would advantage the offeree as compared to the offeror
(Han, & Mithas, 2013). It is essential to realize that such errors and mistakes may be perceived
as expensive and costly especially when they are not identified upon an award of a contract. In
such a case, the offeree may take consideration of two options in regard to this case, to either
reject or nullify the proposal on a basis on a known error or to take an advantage of the errors
and mistake and take the proposal as it is, thus the offeree is considered as liable by the terms
and the conditions stipulated in the proposal.
COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS 4
However, in an event where the offeror remits such a proposal to the offeree, the offeree
may choose to enlighten the offeror on the errors and give a preposition on the submission of
such a request, usually done in a duly written format addressing such exceptions (Han, & Mithas,
2013). The offeror on the other hand is mandated to grant the offeree a representative as bound
by the contract to review the proposal with the aim of making verifications in any case the errors
On the other hand, it is essential to consider that liable charges on the mistakes identified
in the proposal may be addressed to both the parties that engage in the contracting process. If an
offeror sends the proposals to the offeree with some errors on it, the court is subjected to uphold
a review process that will see the offeree, determined as a recipient bound by the terms of the
proposal to adhere to the terms and conditions of the contents of the proposal. These statutes are
also applied to acceptances (Han, & Mithas, 2013). Any violation of the stipulated procedures
results in a breach of the contracting process. In this case, the process of procurement will be
begin with a determination of IRS needs in order to accomplish the mission of the organization.
As the program officer, I will be in a position to determine the requirements that can be fulfilled
and those that cannot within the procurement process such as the preparation of the preliminary
specifications of the software systems. In this case, it is essential to determine that in contracting,
considering the clauses since many of these clauses are considered as non-negotiable is
important. Before contracting, it is necessary to review all the clauses that are contained in the
solicitation even though some are bound to resemble the commercial clauses.
Judicial Remedy for the Offeror
In therefore arriving at a verdict, the court would in this case consider the offeror as a
preferred party, thus validating a rule on business expediency. However errors according to some
COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS 5
jurisdictions may be treated as not agreeable in the contracting process, thus both parties are
conceived to have failed to arrive at an agreement. When this contract is breached by a
contractor, the termination clause comes into play. A breach in this case may occur in the event
that the supplier fails to deliver the software system or makes a progress that would endanger the
contracts performance (Han, & Mithas, 2013). Consequently, this gives me as the contracting
officer at IRS to terminate such a contract for default as determined in the clause FAR 52.249-81
COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS 6
Benaroch, M., Lichtenstein, Y., & Fink, L. (2016). Contract Design Choices And The Balance
Of Ex Ante And Ex Post Transaction Costs In Software Development Outsourcing1. MIS
Quarterly, 40(1), 57-82.
Dolgui, A., & Proth, J. (2013). Outsourcing: definitions and analysis. International Journal Of
Production Research, 51(23/24), 6769-6777.
Han, K., & Mithas, S. (2013). Information Technology Outsourcing And Non-It Operating
Costs: An Empirical Investigation. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 315-331.