Transparency during the awarding of the government contract is crucial, especially for the general public. Transparency ensures that all the contracting processes are made with openness. In this case, some arguments are supporting the inclusion of the contracts' social objectives, and those oppose the idea. Generally, the inclusion of social goals has both advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages of including the contracts' social objective is awarding the contract to the right and fit contractors (Curry, 2010). The objectives help identify whether the specific entity or agency meets all the criteria needed to attain particular needs, including the specific number of employees, management, and ownership regulations. Usually, the government is likely to consider entities that meet the green contract requirements ( Samuels, 2020) . Therefore, with a wide range of entities competing, it allows for selecting the company with the most effective strategies to minimize energy consumption and promote the use of renewable energies. The company should promote the greatest environmental conservation through the minimum release of pollutants into the atmosphere (Curry, 2010). Additionally, it allows all entities hence promoting healthy competition. With all the common objectives being indicated in the contract, many agencies might come out to compete for the chance. This allows the agency to choose among the best and even reduces the cost of contracting. Competition promotes price standardization instead of the monopoly case where an entity would hike its prices because of the demand for its services (Toledo Blade, 2010). Outlining the objectives ensures that entities understand their role and what they are expected of them to fulfill the contract. It gives the direction of the project in terms of what needs to be attained. One of the disadvantages is that small businesses may be at a disadvantage. Using a competitive advantage to select the fittest entity can hinder small businesses from winning the contract (Curry 2010). Also, socioeconomic programs may use equal opportunity measures but fail to include affirmative action techniques that met and surpassed the goals. Relying on affirmative action is likely to result in high pricing, low quality, and late deliveries. Besides, it also promotes unethical contracting practices (Manuel, 2010). Usually, excluding an entire group of companies from the competitive base may result in more corruption due to the exclusion of companies that misrepresent their categories and use the targeted firms as the front entities.
References
Curry, W.S. (2010). Government Contracting: Promises and Perils. ‘Chapter four; Sore Source or Competition. ’ CRC Press.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Curry, W.S. Government Contracting: Promises and Perils. ‘Chapter five; Government Objectives through Government Contracting. ’ CRC Press.
Manuel, K. (2010). Competition in federal contracting: An overview of the legal requirements. DIANE Publishing.
Samuels, D. (2020). Government procurement and changes in firm transparency. The Accounting Review, 0000-0000.
Toledo Blade. (2010). TPS Bypasses Local Firms. The Blade. https://www.toledoblade.com/local/education/2010/08/02/TPS-bypasses-local-firms/stories/201008020015
