LEG440 Assignment 2

Sigchi4life
Category:
Business & Finance
Price: $15 USD

Question description

Due Week 4 and worth 150 points

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 Internal Revenue Services, and your supervisor has tasked you with the procurement of a new software system for processing tax returns.

Review the Proposal Adequacy Checklist.

Write a two to three (2-3) page paper in which you:

  1. Analyze the proposal adequacy checklist  for organizing a proposal, and summarize the intrinsic value of two (2) of the suggestions on the checklist. Prepare and articulate an argument in support of your position.
  2. Debate whether or not the offeree should let an offeror’s mistake within a proposal go uncorrected, even if such action would cause the offeror to withstand a loss. Suggest one (1) judicial remedy available to the offeror to prevent his / her loss. Provide an argument in support of your position. 
  3. Use at least three (3) quality academic resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia does not qualify as an academic resource.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

  • Distinguish between the various types of contracts and considerations for use.
  • Explain how to use the administrative and judicial processes available for contract dispute resolution.
  • Use technology and information resources to research issues in procurement and contract law.
  • Write clearly and concisely about procurement and contract law using correct grammar and mechanics

Points: 150

Assignment 2: Competition Requirements

Criteria

Unacceptable

Below 60% F

Meets Minimum Expectations

60-69% D

Fair

70-79% C

Proficient

80-89% B

Exemplary

90-100% A

1. Analyze the proposal adequacy checklist for organizing a proposal, and summarize the intrinsic value of two (2) of the suggestions on the checklist. Prepare and articulate an argument in support of your position.

Weight: 35%

Did not submit or incompletely analyzed the proposal adequacy checklist for organizing a proposal, and did not submit or incompletely summarized the intrinsic value of two (2) of the suggestions on the checklist. Did not submit or incompletely prepared and articulated an argument in support of your position.

Insufficiently analyzed the proposal adequacy checklist for organizing a proposal, and insufficiently summarized the intrinsic value of two (2) of the suggestions on the checklist. Insufficiently prepared and articulated an argument in support of your position.

Partially analyzed the proposal adequacy checklist for organizing a proposal, and partially summarized the intrinsic value of two (2) of the suggestions on the checklist. Partially prepared and articulated an argument in support of your position.

Satisfactorily analyzed the proposal adequacy checklist for organizing a proposal, and satisfactorily summarized the intrinsic value of two (2) of the suggestions on the checklist.  Satisfactorily prepared and articulated an argument in support of your position.

Thoroughly analyzed the proposal adequacy checklist for organizing a proposal, and thoroughly summarized the intrinsic value of two (2) of the suggestions on the checklist. Thoroughly prepared and articulated an argument in support of your position.

2. Debate whether or not the offeree should let an offeror’s mistake within a proposal go uncorrected, even if such action would cause the offeror to withstand a loss. Suggest one (1) judicial remedy available to the offeror to prevent his / her loss. Provide an argument in support of your position.
Weight: 40%

Did not submit or incompletely debated whether or not the offeree should let an offeror’s mistake within a proposal go uncorrected, even if such action would cause the offeror to withstand a loss. Did not submit or incompletely suggested one (1) judicial remedy available to the offeror to prevent his / her loss. Did not submit or incompletely provided an argument in support of your position.

Insufficiently debated whether or not the offeree should let an offeror’s mistake within a proposal go uncorrected, even if such action would cause the offeror to withstand a loss. Insufficiently suggested one (1) judicial remedy available to the offeror to prevent his / her loss. Insufficiently provided an argument in support of your position.

Partially debated whether or not the offeree should let an offeror’s mistake within a proposal go uncorrected, even if such action would cause the offeror to withstand a loss. Partially suggested one (1) judicial remedy available to the offeror to prevent his / her loss. Partially provided an argument in support of your position.

Satisfactorily debated whether or not the offeree should let an offeror’s mistake within a proposal go uncorrected, even if such action would cause the offeror to withstand a loss. Satisfactorily suggested one (1) judicial remedy available to the offeror to prevent his / her loss. Satisfactorily provided an argument in support of your position.

Thoroughly debated whether or not the offeree should let an offeror’s mistake within a proposal go uncorrected, even if such action would cause the offeror to withstand a loss. Thoroughly suggested one (1) judicial remedy available to the offeror to prevent his / her loss. Thoroughly provided an argument in support of your position.

3. 3 references

Weight: 5%

No references provided

Does not meet the required number of references, and/or references are of poor quality.

Meets the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

4. Writing Mechanics, Grammar, and Formatting

Weight: 5%

Serious and persistent errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.

Numerous errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation.

Partially free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.

Mostly free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.

Error free or almost error free grammar, spelling, punctuation, or formatting.

5. Appropriate use of APA in-text citations and  reference section

Weight: 5%

Lack of in-text citations and / or lack of reference section.

In-text citations and references are given, but not in APA format.

In-text citations and references are provided, but they are only partially formatted correctly in APA style.

Most in-text citations and references are provided, and they are generally formatted correctly in APA style.

In-text citations and references are error free or almost error free and consistently formatted correctly in APA style.

6. Information Literacy / Integration of Sources

Weight: 5%

Serious errors in the integration of sources, such as intentional or accidental plagiarism, or failure to use in-text citations.

Sources are rarely integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.

Sources are partially integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.

Sources are mostly integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.

Sources are consistently integrated using effective techniques of quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing.

7. Clarity and Coherence of Writing

Weight: 5%

Information is confusing to the reader and fails to include reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.

Information is somewhat confusing with not enough reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.

Information is partially clear with minimal reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.

Information is mostly clear and generally supported with reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.

Information is provided in a clear, coherent, and consistent manner with reasons and evidence that logically support ideas.


Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Daniel C.
(997)
School: UT Austin
PREMIUM TUTOR
Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students
Ask your homework questions. Receive quality answers!

Type your question here (or upload an image)

1819 tutors are online

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors