We've always observed that the staff assigned to proposal teams is generally really good at thoroughly reading the contents of solicitations...
...at least those where all references are provided in full text and where all instructions are unobstructed and clearly spelled out.
However, in a solicitation that contains 293 clauses and provisions, most of which are incorporated by reference, the staff would not have been able to ensure that their proposal will be in compliance with all the solicitation’s instructions and requirements.
There just wouldn't have been enough time to flip back and forth between the solicitation's clauses and their prescriptions, while the effort of researching and analyzing each clause would have most likely yield inaccurate results.
This is the primary the reason why some companies tend to "ignore" the FAR clauses in solicitations -- unless they've accidentally stumbled upon those whose title contained some "risky" term (e.g. indemnity or warranty, etc.)
In the age of automation and cloud-based solutions that don't require any deployment or integration, however, we don't understand why companies would take this risk. After all, these companies don't take the instructions regarding the page counts, contents of the cover letters, and table of contents lightly, so why they would ignore the solicitation’s clauses and provisions?
An offeror who chooses to compete under a patently ambiguous solicitation does so at its own peril, and cannot later complain when the agency proceeds in a manner inconsistent with one of the possible interpretations. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., B‑276012.2, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 75 at 4-5.
Please do pay attention to clauses and provisions in your solicitations -- whether they are provided in full text or incorporated by reference.
And, instead of deferring to manual labor, use our tool to give you instant risk and applicability analyses. Try it now for free at https://farclause.com/Analysis