What is a common requirement for ratification of an unauthorized commitment?

In the context of ratifying an unauthorized commitment, it is essential that it be established that the award would have been proper had the necessary legal authority been followed from the outset. This principle is grounded in the goal of ensuring that even when a contract is executed without proper authorization, it remains valid and effective if it meets the requirements for a legitimate procurement action.

Ratification is essentially a mechanism to backfill the authority that was not present during the initial commitment, and determining that the contract would have been proper under the appropriate circumstances is a critical step in this process. This ensures adherence to proper contracting protocol and safeguards the integrity of the procurement process.

The other options do not align with the fundamental principles governing unauthorized commitments. For instance, while certain thresholds or approvals may be relevant in various contexts, they are not mandated requirements for the specific process of ratifying an unauthorized commitment. The focus lies primarily on the legitimacy of the contract in terms of its appropriateness under procurement law.