CORB COMPREHENSIVE EXAM 2026/2027 QUESTIONS
AND SOLUTIONS RATED A+
✔✔As the Contracting Officer on a source selection you recently sent out the notice to
unsuccessful offerors and have received several requests for debriefings. Some of the
requests are for pre-award debriefs and some are for post award debriefs. What are the
things you may/may not tell the offerors in the debriefings? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR
15.505; FAR 15.506 ANSWER: Based on the scenario, it appears that the notices were
sent to offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the
competition before award. Within 3 days of receiving the notice, offerors can either
request a pre-award debriefing, or delay the debriefing until after award. For those
requesting a pre-award debriefing, the debriefing shall include, at a minimum: (1) The
agency's evaluation of significant elements in the offeror's proposal; (2) A summary of
the rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition; and (3) Reasonable
responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained
in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed
in the process of eliminating the offeror from the competition. Pre-award debriefings
shall not disclose: (1) The number of offerors; (2) The identity of other offerors; (3) The
content of other offerors proposals; (4) The ranking of other offerors; (5) The evaluation
of other offerors; or (6) Any of the information prohibited in 15.506(e) For those who
chose a post-award debrief, they shall include, at a minimum: (1) The Government's
evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror's proposal, if
applicable; (2)The overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices), and technical
rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past
performance information on the debriefed offeror; (3)The overall ranking of all offerors,
when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection; (4)A
summary of the rationale for award; (5)For acquisitions of commercial items, the make
and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror; and (6)Reasonable
responses to relevant que
✔✔You were the Contracting Officer for a source selection that bought 500 engine
trailers based on adequate price competition from Engine Trailers, Inc. Three months
later a decision was made to buy an additional 50 trailers from this company. As a
Contracting Officer for this follow-on buy, would you need to request certified cost or
pricing data or would it be acceptable to buy from this same source based on the TINA
exception for adequate price competition? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(iii)
ANSWER: It would be acceptable to buy the additional 50 trailers based on the TINA
exception for adequate price competition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(iii) which states "A
price is based on adequate price competition if price analysis clearly demonstrates that
the proposed price is reasonable in comparison with current or recent prices for the
same or similar items, adjusted to reflect changes in market conditions, economic
conditions, quantities, or terms and conditions under contracts that resulted from
adequate price competition." Since the trailers are being procured only 3 months later,
the "recent prices for the same or similar items" appears to be the reason that these still
fall under adequate price competition.
,✔✔You are the Contracting Officer for an $8M acquisition. The buy includes two sole
source subcontracts valued at $1.2M and $770K. The contractor has three questions for
you concerning these subcontractors. They are: (1) Do these subcontractors need to
submit certified cost or pricing data? (2) If one or both need to submit certified data,
does this data need to be submitted to the PCO? (3) Does the prime contractor need to
accomplish a Vendor Cost Analysis on these subcontractor proposals? REFERENCE:
FAR 15.404-3 ANSWER: As the PCO, you are responsible for determining a fair and
reasonable price for the prime contract, to include subcontracts. I would answer the
prime contractor as follows, assuming that the current $8M acquisition required certified
cost or pricing data (i.e. it meets the threshold, but need to assume no exception
applies). First, for (1), both subcontractors need to submit certified cost or pricing - ✔✔
✔✔You are the CO on a new R&D program. Proposals were recently received in
response to a Broad Agency Announcement, and a Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) type
contract is anticipated. The proposal most favored by the technical team was priced
significantly under the Government estimate. The contractor proposed fee is an amount
that equates to 20% of the estimated cost. The Program Manager (or user) has more
than enough funds to cover the entire proposed price and wants you to accept the price
as is. How should you advise the Program Manager (or user) and what factors should
you consider in determining a reasonable fee? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.404-
4(c)(4)(i) ANSWER: The statutory limitation on CPFF type contracts does not permit fee
to exceed 15% of the estimated cost for experimental, developmental, or research
performed under a CPFF contract. As the proposed amount of fee is outside the
statutory limitations you need to determine what a fair and reasonable rate is that falls
inside the limitations. The FAR recommends a structured approach for determining fee
such as Weighted Guidelines, which considers four primary factors. These factors are
performance risk, contract type risk, facilities capital employed and cost efficiency. I
would tell the PM that I cannot accept the proposal as-is, but I plan to come up with a
reasonable profit figure using Weighted Guidelines, then negotiate fee with the
contractor (assuming costs are already acceptable/reasonable).
✔✔You are in a source selection and according to the RFP the offerors are to submit a
paper copy and an electronic version of their offer. One offeror submits both versions,
on time, one hour before closing time for receipt of proposals. However, the next day,
when the electronic version is loaded to begin evaluations, it is found to be defective
and cannot be read. What do you do and why? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.207(c)
ANSWER: Check to make sure the paper version is complete and acceptable for
evaluation. Then you may either use it or ask the offeror to submit another electronic
version. Once you verify that it is the same as the paper version you already have, use
the new electronic version. Why? No one has been harmed or disadvantaged by this,
the government could have evaluated the paper version alone so the electronic version
is merely for the convenience of the government. FAR part 15 says that if any portion of
a proposal received by the contracting officer electronically or by facsimile is
unreadable, the contracting officer immediately shall notify the offeror and permit the
offeror to resubmit the unreadable portion of the proposal. The method and time for
resubmission shall be prescribed by the contracting officer after consultation with the
,offeror, and documented in the file. The resubmission shall be considered as if it were
received at the date and time of the original unreadable submission for the purpose of
determining timeliness under 15.208(a), provided the offeror complies with the time and
format requirements for resubmission prescribed by the contracting officer.
✔✔You have been assigned as the CO for a new source selection. The Program
Manager wants to receive brief written abstracts, followed by oral proposals and makes
a convincing case that, from an evaluation standpoint, this is the easiest method to
assess the offerors' technical abilities. What are some things you should both consider
before proceeding? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.102 ANSWER: While oral
presentations can be effective in streamlining the source selection process and may be
a suitable method for gathering information from offerors, the FAR recommends taking
four things into consideration beforehand: (1) The Government's ability to adequately
evaluate the information: What components of the oral presentation will be tied to
evaluation factors? Does the Government have adequate technical resources to
document and review each oral presentation (audio, video, transcription, etc)? Will the
presentation style influence or sway the results (i.e. will the best-presented offeror
outperform the most capable)? (2)The need to incorporate any information into the
resultant contract: Will terms and conditions result from the oral presentation that have
to then be transcribed into the PWS/contract? (3) Impact on the efficiency of the
acquisition: How many prospective offerors are there? What if way more offerors
actually respond? Will this presentation method attract those who are less qualified?
Does the Government have the time/schedule/facilities to accommodate everyone? Will
this method actually create efficiencies as compared to written proposals? (4)The
impact (including cost) on small businesses. Will this method actually restrict
competition? Is it possible to accommodate teleconferencing/ videoconferencing instead
of on-site?
✔✔You are near the conclusion of a high-dollar value negotiation with your contractor.
The contractor has mentioned a data sweep to your Program Manager who in turn has
come to you with a couple of questions: What is a data sweep? Is it required by the
government, and what is its purpose? The PM also indicated that the contractor
mentioned the sweep could result in an upward or downward adjustment to the
negotiated price and he wants to know if this is true. - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.407-1;
AFMC MP 5315.406-2; CPRG Vol 4 Ch 5 ANSWER: A data sweep is the term given to
the extensive reviews many contractors like to do following agreement on price in
negotiations but prior to submitting their Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. The
objective of a data sweep is to protect the contractor from charges of defective pricing at
a later date by identifying any new or revised data that will make the contractor's data
current, accurate, and complete. The offeror then submits the new or revised data with
its Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Data sweeps have taken several months
to complete for a single contract in some instances. It is NOT required by the
Government and it could indicate serious flaws in the contractor's estimating system if it
takes more than 30 days. It has long been held by the DoD Inspector General that the
contract price should not be increased as a result of data submitted after price
agreement, which is consistent with post-award audits where offsets are only allowed
, up to the amount the contract was increased due to defective pricing. AFMC MP says
that when a contractor submits additional cost or pricing data after the date of
agreement on price, but before contract award, which is current as of the date of
agreement on price, the contracting officer shall: (1)Require the contractor to provide a
price impact summary which separately reflects price increase and price decrease
impacts on the negotiated price; (2)Allow only a downward price adjustment; a net zero
adjustment may be considered when valid price increase offsets are present; and
(3)Require that the "as of" date on the Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data be the
date of agreement on price rather than the date the additional data was submitted.
✔✔Please define what a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data is and what is its
purpose? What does a contractor's signature on the certificate constitute? What are
some of the key things you would expect to see or review before accepting the
certificate? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.406-2; AFMC MP 5315.406-2 ANSWER: A
Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data is typically a one-page document, formatted
IAW FAR 15.406-2 that states that, to the best of the contractor's knowledge, the cost or
pricing data submitted with its proposal is current, accurate, and complete as of the date
of agreement on price or, if applicable, an earlier date agreed upon between the parties
that is as close as practicable to the date of agreement on price. The purpose is to have
the company commit to the accuracy, completeness, and currency of submitted data. If
the data is later found to be incorrect or appropriate data was not submitted, the
government reserves the right to downward contract price adjustment for any monetary
damages incurred. It is important to note that the certificate does not constitute a
representation as to the accuracy of the contractor's judgment on the estimate of future
costs or projects. Rather, it applies to the data upon which the judgment or estimate
was based. This distinction between fact and judgment should be clearly understood. In
other words, the contractor uses its judgment with the current, accurate, and complete
information it has at the time to make projections about future costs. If those costs later
change, we cannot fault the contractor's judgment for not seeing the change coming.
They relied on the data they had at the time, and that data was the most current,
accurate, and complete available. There are several key things we would expect to see
or review before accepting a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. The first big
assumption here is that there are no exceptions to certified cost or pricing data that
would make the certificate unnecessary. Assuming that is the case, the certificate must
be in the exact format as shown in FAR 15.406-2, with
✔✔Provide a brief description of defective pricing and name at least one thing you can
do during the pre-award process as a contracting officer in order to protect the
government's interest during the post-award process. - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.407-1
ANSWER: Defective pricing is any certified cost or pricing data found to be or have
been inaccurate, incomplete, or noncurrent. The implicit assumption here is that the
contractor had additional information available at the time of price agreement (i.e. the
"as of" date on the Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data) that shows their
negotiated price was not based on accurate, complete, and current data. To prevent this
situation, there are a few things you can do during the pre-award process:
(1)Documentation: Your PNM must REFERENCE what data the contractor provided
AND SOLUTIONS RATED A+
✔✔As the Contracting Officer on a source selection you recently sent out the notice to
unsuccessful offerors and have received several requests for debriefings. Some of the
requests are for pre-award debriefs and some are for post award debriefs. What are the
things you may/may not tell the offerors in the debriefings? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR
15.505; FAR 15.506 ANSWER: Based on the scenario, it appears that the notices were
sent to offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the
competition before award. Within 3 days of receiving the notice, offerors can either
request a pre-award debriefing, or delay the debriefing until after award. For those
requesting a pre-award debriefing, the debriefing shall include, at a minimum: (1) The
agency's evaluation of significant elements in the offeror's proposal; (2) A summary of
the rationale for eliminating the offeror from the competition; and (3) Reasonable
responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures contained
in the solicitation, applicable regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed
in the process of eliminating the offeror from the competition. Pre-award debriefings
shall not disclose: (1) The number of offerors; (2) The identity of other offerors; (3) The
content of other offerors proposals; (4) The ranking of other offerors; (5) The evaluation
of other offerors; or (6) Any of the information prohibited in 15.506(e) For those who
chose a post-award debrief, they shall include, at a minimum: (1) The Government's
evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the offeror's proposal, if
applicable; (2)The overall evaluated cost or price (including unit prices), and technical
rating, if applicable, of the successful offeror and the debriefed offeror, and past
performance information on the debriefed offeror; (3)The overall ranking of all offerors,
when any ranking was developed by the agency during the source selection; (4)A
summary of the rationale for award; (5)For acquisitions of commercial items, the make
and model of the item to be delivered by the successful offeror; and (6)Reasonable
responses to relevant que
✔✔You were the Contracting Officer for a source selection that bought 500 engine
trailers based on adequate price competition from Engine Trailers, Inc. Three months
later a decision was made to buy an additional 50 trailers from this company. As a
Contracting Officer for this follow-on buy, would you need to request certified cost or
pricing data or would it be acceptable to buy from this same source based on the TINA
exception for adequate price competition? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(iii)
ANSWER: It would be acceptable to buy the additional 50 trailers based on the TINA
exception for adequate price competition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(iii) which states "A
price is based on adequate price competition if price analysis clearly demonstrates that
the proposed price is reasonable in comparison with current or recent prices for the
same or similar items, adjusted to reflect changes in market conditions, economic
conditions, quantities, or terms and conditions under contracts that resulted from
adequate price competition." Since the trailers are being procured only 3 months later,
the "recent prices for the same or similar items" appears to be the reason that these still
fall under adequate price competition.
,✔✔You are the Contracting Officer for an $8M acquisition. The buy includes two sole
source subcontracts valued at $1.2M and $770K. The contractor has three questions for
you concerning these subcontractors. They are: (1) Do these subcontractors need to
submit certified cost or pricing data? (2) If one or both need to submit certified data,
does this data need to be submitted to the PCO? (3) Does the prime contractor need to
accomplish a Vendor Cost Analysis on these subcontractor proposals? REFERENCE:
FAR 15.404-3 ANSWER: As the PCO, you are responsible for determining a fair and
reasonable price for the prime contract, to include subcontracts. I would answer the
prime contractor as follows, assuming that the current $8M acquisition required certified
cost or pricing data (i.e. it meets the threshold, but need to assume no exception
applies). First, for (1), both subcontractors need to submit certified cost or pricing - ✔✔
✔✔You are the CO on a new R&D program. Proposals were recently received in
response to a Broad Agency Announcement, and a Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) type
contract is anticipated. The proposal most favored by the technical team was priced
significantly under the Government estimate. The contractor proposed fee is an amount
that equates to 20% of the estimated cost. The Program Manager (or user) has more
than enough funds to cover the entire proposed price and wants you to accept the price
as is. How should you advise the Program Manager (or user) and what factors should
you consider in determining a reasonable fee? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.404-
4(c)(4)(i) ANSWER: The statutory limitation on CPFF type contracts does not permit fee
to exceed 15% of the estimated cost for experimental, developmental, or research
performed under a CPFF contract. As the proposed amount of fee is outside the
statutory limitations you need to determine what a fair and reasonable rate is that falls
inside the limitations. The FAR recommends a structured approach for determining fee
such as Weighted Guidelines, which considers four primary factors. These factors are
performance risk, contract type risk, facilities capital employed and cost efficiency. I
would tell the PM that I cannot accept the proposal as-is, but I plan to come up with a
reasonable profit figure using Weighted Guidelines, then negotiate fee with the
contractor (assuming costs are already acceptable/reasonable).
✔✔You are in a source selection and according to the RFP the offerors are to submit a
paper copy and an electronic version of their offer. One offeror submits both versions,
on time, one hour before closing time for receipt of proposals. However, the next day,
when the electronic version is loaded to begin evaluations, it is found to be defective
and cannot be read. What do you do and why? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.207(c)
ANSWER: Check to make sure the paper version is complete and acceptable for
evaluation. Then you may either use it or ask the offeror to submit another electronic
version. Once you verify that it is the same as the paper version you already have, use
the new electronic version. Why? No one has been harmed or disadvantaged by this,
the government could have evaluated the paper version alone so the electronic version
is merely for the convenience of the government. FAR part 15 says that if any portion of
a proposal received by the contracting officer electronically or by facsimile is
unreadable, the contracting officer immediately shall notify the offeror and permit the
offeror to resubmit the unreadable portion of the proposal. The method and time for
resubmission shall be prescribed by the contracting officer after consultation with the
,offeror, and documented in the file. The resubmission shall be considered as if it were
received at the date and time of the original unreadable submission for the purpose of
determining timeliness under 15.208(a), provided the offeror complies with the time and
format requirements for resubmission prescribed by the contracting officer.
✔✔You have been assigned as the CO for a new source selection. The Program
Manager wants to receive brief written abstracts, followed by oral proposals and makes
a convincing case that, from an evaluation standpoint, this is the easiest method to
assess the offerors' technical abilities. What are some things you should both consider
before proceeding? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.102 ANSWER: While oral
presentations can be effective in streamlining the source selection process and may be
a suitable method for gathering information from offerors, the FAR recommends taking
four things into consideration beforehand: (1) The Government's ability to adequately
evaluate the information: What components of the oral presentation will be tied to
evaluation factors? Does the Government have adequate technical resources to
document and review each oral presentation (audio, video, transcription, etc)? Will the
presentation style influence or sway the results (i.e. will the best-presented offeror
outperform the most capable)? (2)The need to incorporate any information into the
resultant contract: Will terms and conditions result from the oral presentation that have
to then be transcribed into the PWS/contract? (3) Impact on the efficiency of the
acquisition: How many prospective offerors are there? What if way more offerors
actually respond? Will this presentation method attract those who are less qualified?
Does the Government have the time/schedule/facilities to accommodate everyone? Will
this method actually create efficiencies as compared to written proposals? (4)The
impact (including cost) on small businesses. Will this method actually restrict
competition? Is it possible to accommodate teleconferencing/ videoconferencing instead
of on-site?
✔✔You are near the conclusion of a high-dollar value negotiation with your contractor.
The contractor has mentioned a data sweep to your Program Manager who in turn has
come to you with a couple of questions: What is a data sweep? Is it required by the
government, and what is its purpose? The PM also indicated that the contractor
mentioned the sweep could result in an upward or downward adjustment to the
negotiated price and he wants to know if this is true. - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.407-1;
AFMC MP 5315.406-2; CPRG Vol 4 Ch 5 ANSWER: A data sweep is the term given to
the extensive reviews many contractors like to do following agreement on price in
negotiations but prior to submitting their Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. The
objective of a data sweep is to protect the contractor from charges of defective pricing at
a later date by identifying any new or revised data that will make the contractor's data
current, accurate, and complete. The offeror then submits the new or revised data with
its Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. Data sweeps have taken several months
to complete for a single contract in some instances. It is NOT required by the
Government and it could indicate serious flaws in the contractor's estimating system if it
takes more than 30 days. It has long been held by the DoD Inspector General that the
contract price should not be increased as a result of data submitted after price
agreement, which is consistent with post-award audits where offsets are only allowed
, up to the amount the contract was increased due to defective pricing. AFMC MP says
that when a contractor submits additional cost or pricing data after the date of
agreement on price, but before contract award, which is current as of the date of
agreement on price, the contracting officer shall: (1)Require the contractor to provide a
price impact summary which separately reflects price increase and price decrease
impacts on the negotiated price; (2)Allow only a downward price adjustment; a net zero
adjustment may be considered when valid price increase offsets are present; and
(3)Require that the "as of" date on the Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data be the
date of agreement on price rather than the date the additional data was submitted.
✔✔Please define what a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data is and what is its
purpose? What does a contractor's signature on the certificate constitute? What are
some of the key things you would expect to see or review before accepting the
certificate? - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.406-2; AFMC MP 5315.406-2 ANSWER: A
Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data is typically a one-page document, formatted
IAW FAR 15.406-2 that states that, to the best of the contractor's knowledge, the cost or
pricing data submitted with its proposal is current, accurate, and complete as of the date
of agreement on price or, if applicable, an earlier date agreed upon between the parties
that is as close as practicable to the date of agreement on price. The purpose is to have
the company commit to the accuracy, completeness, and currency of submitted data. If
the data is later found to be incorrect or appropriate data was not submitted, the
government reserves the right to downward contract price adjustment for any monetary
damages incurred. It is important to note that the certificate does not constitute a
representation as to the accuracy of the contractor's judgment on the estimate of future
costs or projects. Rather, it applies to the data upon which the judgment or estimate
was based. This distinction between fact and judgment should be clearly understood. In
other words, the contractor uses its judgment with the current, accurate, and complete
information it has at the time to make projections about future costs. If those costs later
change, we cannot fault the contractor's judgment for not seeing the change coming.
They relied on the data they had at the time, and that data was the most current,
accurate, and complete available. There are several key things we would expect to see
or review before accepting a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data. The first big
assumption here is that there are no exceptions to certified cost or pricing data that
would make the certificate unnecessary. Assuming that is the case, the certificate must
be in the exact format as shown in FAR 15.406-2, with
✔✔Provide a brief description of defective pricing and name at least one thing you can
do during the pre-award process as a contracting officer in order to protect the
government's interest during the post-award process. - ✔✔REFERENCE: FAR 15.407-1
ANSWER: Defective pricing is any certified cost or pricing data found to be or have
been inaccurate, incomplete, or noncurrent. The implicit assumption here is that the
contractor had additional information available at the time of price agreement (i.e. the
"as of" date on the Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data) that shows their
negotiated price was not based on accurate, complete, and current data. To prevent this
situation, there are a few things you can do during the pre-award process:
(1)Documentation: Your PNM must REFERENCE what data the contractor provided
