Note that, in such condition the protein-protein interaction between Gal4 and Gal80 is switched off. Thus, the topology of IRMA consists of two loops composed only of transcriptional interactions in galactose are considered: one delayed positive Qingyangshengenin-B feedback loop among the genes CBF1, GAL4, SWI5 with a delayed reaction due to the presence of the HO promoter, and one negative feedback loop among the genes CBF1, GAL4, SWI5, ASH1. The presence of intermediate states in such negative loop suggests that the network has the potentiality of being turned into an autonomous oscillator, if a proper tuning of the parameters is performed. In what follows, we analyse 3 possible re-engineering scenarios in order both to compare the oscillator tunability and robustness due to different network topologies and to explore different experimental strategies for their implementation. As our investigation confirms the flexibility of IRMA, we further explore the possibility of turning the network also into a bistable switch. A bistable system is one that toggles between two discrete, alternative stable steady states, in contrast to a monostable system. In biology, bistability has long been established in control of the cell cycle and other oscillations, and also recently reported in an artificial gene regulation network. Bistability arises in signaling systems that contain a positive feedback loop or a mutually inhibitory, double negative- feedback loop. Indeed, in it is demonstrated that the existence of at least one positive-feedback loop is is a necessary condition for the existence of multiple steady states. The topology proposed in Scenario 2 appears feasible for in vivo implementation and the oscillations appear robust to varying parameters and initial Gomisin-J conditions. For the sake of completeness, we consider also the possibility of including in the network a positive feedback loop, in order to check if the robustness and the tunability of the oscillations increase, according to what shown in a number of works. In Scenario 3, the topology of the network is the same as in Scenario 2 with the addition of an auto-activation reaction on SWI5.