What we would like to prove is a conjunction, so it suffices to prove each conjunct separately and then glue them together at the end. This problem would probably be easier and more intuitive using proof by contradiction, but after talking with the asker, I will provide a direct proof.
$$\begin{array}{lr}
1. & (P \rightarrow Q)\wedge(Q \rightarrow R) & \text{Premise} \\
2. & P \rightarrow Q &\text{Simplification, 1}\\
3. & Q \rightarrow R & \text{Simplification, 1}\\
4. & \neg{P} \vee Q & \text{Conditional Law, 2}\\
5. & \neg{Q} \vee R & \text{Conditional Law, 3}\\
6. & Q \vee \neg{Q} & \text{Tautology} \\
7. & \neg{P} \vee R & \text{Constructive Dilemma, 4,5,6}\\
8. & P \rightarrow R & \text{Conditional Law, 7}\\
9. & (P \rightarrow Q) \vee (Q \rightarrow R) &\text{Addition, 2}\\
10. & (Q \rightarrow P) \vee (Q \rightarrow R) &\text{Addition, 3}\\
11. & (P \rightarrow Q) \vee (R \rightarrow Q) &\text{Addition, 2}\\
12. & Q \vee \neg{Q} & \text{Tautology}\\
13. & (Q \vee \neg{Q}) \vee (P \vee \neg{R}) & \text{Addidition, 12}\\
14. & (\neg{Q} \vee P) \vee (\neg{R} \vee Q) & \text{Associative Law, 13}\\
15. & (Q \rightarrow P) \vee (R \rightarrow Q) & \text{Conditional Law, 14}\\
16. & \big((P \rightarrow Q) \vee (Q \rightarrow R)\big)\wedge \big((Q \rightarrow P) \vee (Q \rightarrow R)\big) & \text{Conjunction, 9,10}\\
17. & \big((P \rightarrow Q) \vee (R \rightarrow Q)\big)\wedge \big((Q \rightarrow P) \vee (R \rightarrow Q)\big) & \text{Conjunction, 11,15}\\
18. & \big((P \rightarrow Q) \wedge (Q \rightarrow P)\big)\vee (Q \rightarrow R) & \text{Distributive Law, 16}\\
19. & \big((P \rightarrow Q) \wedge (Q \rightarrow P)\big)\vee (R \rightarrow Q) & \text{Distributive Law, 17}\\
20. & \Big(\big((P \rightarrow Q) \wedge (Q \rightarrow P)\big)\vee (Q \rightarrow R)\Big) \wedge & \\
&\Big(\big((P \rightarrow Q) \wedge (Q \rightarrow P)\big)\vee (R \rightarrow Q)\Big) & \text{Conjunction, 18,19}\\
21. & \big((P \rightarrow Q) \wedge (Q \rightarrow P)\big)\vee \big((Q \rightarrow R) \wedge (R \rightarrow Q) \big) & \text{Distributive Law, 20}\\
22. & (P \equiv Q) \vee (Q \equiv R) & \text{Definition of Biconditional, 21}\\
\therefore & (P \rightarrow R)\wedge \big((P \equiv Q) \vee (Q \equiv R)\big) & \text{Conjunction, 8,22}
\end{array}$$
As desired.
$\color{blue}{\checkmark \mathrm A{-}}$
Your steps are correct, although some of their justifications don't match them.
Other than that, spot on.
Best Answer
Yes, De Morgan law is relevant in this case, but alone it is not enough, you should use also other rules. More precisely:
\begin{align} \lnot (p \land q) \land (p ∨ \lnot q) &\equiv (\lnot p \lor \lnot q) \land (p ∨ \lnot q) & &\text{by De Morgan law}\\ &\equiv (\lnot p \land p) \lor \lnot q & &\text{by distributivity of $\lor$ over $\land$} \\ &\equiv \lnot q & & \text{by the identity law for $\lor$} \end{align}
We used the identity law for $\lor$ because $\lnot p \land p$ is a contradiction (i.e. a formula that is false for any truth assignment).
A list of the main logical equivalences in propositional calculus is here.