FAR 14.202-6—Final review of invitations for bids.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 14.202-6 requires a final, thorough review of every invitation for bids (IFB) before it is issued. The section focuses on identifying and correcting discrepancies, ambiguities, and other drafting problems that could restrict competition or cause bidders to submit nonresponsive bids. In practice, this is a quality-control step that helps ensure the solicitation is clear, internally consistent, and legally sound before it reaches industry. The rule is especially important in sealed bidding because bid responsiveness is judged strictly against the IFB as issued, so even small errors can have major consequences. By assigning responsibility to the contracting officer, the FAR makes clear that this review is a core acquisition duty, not a clerical afterthought.
Key Rules
Thorough pre-issuance review
Every IFB must be carefully reviewed before it is released. The review should be detailed enough to catch drafting errors, missing information, and internal inconsistencies.
Correct ambiguities and discrepancies
The purpose of the review is to find and fix language that is unclear, conflicting, or incomplete. This includes problems that could confuse bidders or create different interpretations of the requirement.
Protect competition
The IFB must not contain defects that could limit competition. The review should identify terms or conditions that might unnecessarily restrict bidder participation or advantage one bidder over another.
Avoid nonresponsive bids
The solicitation should be checked for issues that could cause bids to be rejected as nonresponsive. Clear, precise requirements help ensure bidders can prepare bids that fully comply with the IFB as issued.
Contracting officer responsibility
The contracting officer is responsible for conducting or ensuring this final review. The duty cannot be shifted away from the contracting officer, even if others assist in drafting or editing the IFB.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Perform or oversee the final review of each IFB before issuance, identify and correct discrepancies or ambiguities, and ensure the solicitation is clear enough to support full and fair competition and responsive bidding.
Agency/Acquisition Team
Support the contracting officer by drafting, proofreading, and checking the IFB for consistency, completeness, and compliance, while recognizing that final responsibility remains with the contracting officer.
Prospective Bidders
Rely on the issued IFB as the controlling statement of requirements and prepare bids that are fully responsive to its terms; they are affected by the quality of the review but do not perform it.
Practical Implications
This review is a critical safeguard in sealed bidding because once the IFB is issued, unclear or conflicting terms can lead to protests, bid rejection, or the need to amend and reissue the solicitation.
Common pitfalls include inconsistent dates, mismatched specifications, conflicting clauses, missing bid instructions, and requirements that are more restrictive than necessary.
Contracting officers should treat the review as a final quality-control checkpoint, not a routine formality, because even small drafting errors can have outsized consequences.
If a defect is found before issuance, it is usually much easier and less disruptive to correct it than to deal with bidder confusion or nonresponsive bids after opening.
The section reinforces that the contracting officer must actively own solicitation quality, since poor IFB drafting can undermine competition and the integrity of the sealed bidding process.
Official Regulatory Text
Each invitation for bids shall be thoroughly reviewed before issuance to detect and correct discrepancies or ambiguities that could limit competition or result in the receipt of nonresponsive bids. Contracting officers are responsible for the reviews.