CORB Questions
As a PCO, what kinds of things could cause you to lose your warrant? - answer
REFERENCES: FAR 1.603-4; AFFARS MP 5301.603A PCO loses his/her warrant upon
retirement from employment, reassignment from the position requiring a warrant,
termination of employment, or unsatisfactory performance. Terminations must be
submitted in writing using the "Contracting Officer Appointment/Warrant Eligibility
Transfer/Termination Request" template in AFFARS, and requests must be submitted at
least 14 days in advance of the requested termination along with the reason.
You brief an objective at Business clearance. At negotiations, the Contractor is willing to
settle at a number higher than your objective. What do you do? - answer REFERENCE:
AFFARS 5301.9000 ANSWER: If the Business Clearance Approval Authority provided
no latitude, you can: Reject the offer and continue negotiations. Shake hands contingent
upon CAA approval of the number (this seems applicable only if face-to-face
negotiations; if email based, seek CAA approval before hand shake). Get a subsequent
Business Clearance from the CAA.
As a PCO, what kinds of things could cause you to lose your warrant? -
answerREFERENCES: FAR 1.603-4; AFFARS MP 5301.603A PCO loses his/her
warrant upon retirement from employment, reassignment from the position requiring a
warrant, termination of employment, or unsatisfactory performance. Terminations must
be submitted in writing using the "Contracting Officer Appointment/Warrant Eligibility
Transfer/Termination Request" template in AFFARS, and requests must be submitted at
least 14 days in advance of the requested termination along with the reason.
You are the Contracting Officer on a very large aircraft sustainment contract with world-
wide performance requirements. There are contractor personnel stationed at various
bases that provide maintenance and repair capabilities, via the contract's Over and
Above clauses, should organic repair not be available. The Program Manager has just
notified you of an incident that occurred last week at Frankfurter Air Base in Germany
where an aircraft was damaged and required repair, but tells you not to worry as the
aircraft has already been repaired and returned to service by the Contractor's on-site
mechanics. The contract stipulates that before any repairs can begin, written
authorization from the CO or the on-site Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
(COTR) must be provided as the authorization allows the contractor to begin work and
incur costs that will be paid under the contract. You ask the Program Manager fo -
answerREFERENCES/ AUTHORITY: FAR 1.602-3 One of the first steps is to determine
who the "authorizing" official was. If the individual was an A&AS employee, the
authorization to repair the aircraft was not valid as any action that approves the
expenditure of funds is Inherently Governmental and cannot be performed by a
contractor. If the individual was not a contractor but was a legitimate employee of the
U.S. Government you may have a Ratification Action provided the conditions for
,ratification can be met: (1) Supplies or services were received and accepted by the
Government or the Government has or will get a benefit from the unauthorized action;
(2) The ratifying official has the authority to enter into a contractual agreement; (3) The
resulting contract would otherwise have been proper if made by a warranted CO; (4)
The CO reviewing the unauthorized commitment determines the price to be fair and
reasonable; (5) The CO recommends payment and legal counsel concurs in the
recommendation, unless agency procedures expressly do not require such
concurrence; (6) Funds are currently and were available at the time the unauthorized
commitment was made; and(7) The ratification is in accordance with any other
limitations prescribed under agency procedures In either event, the individual did not
have the actual authority to commit the Government by authorizing the work. The
contractor, as well as the Frankfurter Air Base personnel, should also be reminded that
only the CO or his/her designated representative can authorize the expenditure of
funds.
You are the PCO in Source Selection and dutifully following the FAR, DFARS, etc., on a
particular issue. However, your higher leadership is now giving you "direction" which
you believe is contrary to your legal guidance. What do you do? Do you comply with the
law or higher leadership direction? - answerREFERENCES: FAR 1.602-2; AFFARS
5301.602-2; AFMC MP 5301.602-2 ANSWER: This is a classic example of how your
responsibilities as a PCO can sometimes conflict with your responsibilities as part of a
chain of command in the Air Force. While you typically want to comply with the orders of
your higher leadership, it may not be possible due to your responsibilities as a
warranted PCO. In this case, I would first determine the legal parameters of the issue.
Two citations from the regulations may help. First, AFFARS states that when there is
doubt or controversy about the interpretation of statutes, directives, and regulations, you
must seek legal advice. The issue at hand seems to have some controversy as to the
original legal guidance. Second, the AFMC MP says that it's up to the PCO and the
attorney to resolve any issues determined to violate statutes or that lack legal
sufficiency. If it can't be resolved, the PCO should highlight the issue in the clearance
request and briefing. With these things in mind, I would first check to see if the legal
guidance is mandatory or only advisory in nature. If mandatory, I would follow the legal
guidance and then work with my supervisor to help resolve the situation with my higher
leadership. I wouldn't need to "go it alone," but at the end of the day, it is my warrant on
the line and my responsibility to ensure the integrity of the procurement system. I won't
sign anything I don't feel comfortable signing. If there is flexibility in the legal guidance, I
would consult with the attorney again to bring up the potential alternate course of action,
and get his/her input, but I would ultimately determine whether or not to proceed and
then document the file accordingly.
What are the differences between apparent, implied and express authority? -
answerREFERENCE: SGS-92-X003 v. United States; Formation of Gov't Contracts;
Roy v. United States; Distribution of Postal Consultants, Inc. v. United States ANSWER:
Actual authority is either express or implied. Express actual authority to bind the
Government exists in a contract only when the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation
grants it to that agent in unambiguous terms. Implied actual authority exists when such
,authority is considered to be an integral part of the duties assigned to a Government
employee and cannot exist without prior express actual authority. Apparent authority
occurs when a principal makes others believe that she has conferred authority upon an
agent by holding them out to the public or a third-party as the principal's agent.
Apparent authority never binds the Government.
How does a PCO get their authority? - answerREFERENCE: FAR 1.602-1; FAR 1.603-
1 ANSWER: FAR 1.602-1 states that Contracting Officers must receive clear written
instructions as to the limits of their authority from the appointing authority. FAR 1.603-1
states that agency heads or their designees may select and appoint contracting officers
and terminate their appointments. For AFMC, the role of appointing official has been
delegated to the Senior Center Contracting Official (SCCO), i.e. AFLCMC Director of
Contracting. In a broader sense, authority to pay debts and obligate the Government
stems from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants that authority to
Congress. Congress gives authority to the Department of Defense, who in turn gives
authority to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) (ASAF(A)), then to the
MAJCOM SCO (HQ AFMC/PK), to the SCCO (AFLCMC Director of Contracting), and
ultimately to the PCO.
MIRTS and Peer Review are hot topics in today's acquisition arena. Describe the
differences between a MIRT and a Peer Review. - answerREFERENCE: DFARS
201.170; AFFARS 5301.170; AFFARS MP 5301.9001(b) ANSWER: Multi-functional
Independent Review Teams (MIRTs) are comprised of cross-functional subject matter
experts (SMEs). They act as an advisor to the Clearance Approval Authority (CAA) by
validating each critical decision point (CDP), and are based on policy established in
2009. When clearance is required, the CAA must use a MIRT if the acquisition is over
$50M and competitive, but the CAA may waive the MIRT or even specific CDPs within
the MIRT based on acquisition/source selection history and procurement/source
selection experience of the acquisition team (MIRTs 1 & 4 are currently waived up to the
level of the SCCO's authority - $1B for competitive). Also, at the discretion of the CAA,
MIRTs can be used for competitive acquisitions < $50M or for sole-source at any dollar
threshold. The CAA appoints the SMEs to constitute the MIRT, and they will review and
assess CDPs as advisors. MIRTs will convene an out-brief with the source selection
team at the conclusion of each CDP. There are 2 Pre-Business Clearance CDPs: (1)
Review draft ASP brief/draft AP, and (2) Review Sections L & M of the RFP. The final 3
CDPs are Pre-Contract Clearance: (3) Review draft Competitive Range Brief or Award
w/o Discussions Brief, (4) Review draft FPR, (5) Review draft Source Selection Decision
briefing. Peer Review kicks in when we have an acquisition over $1 billion. There are
three Peer Reviews required for competitive acquisitions, and two Peer Reviews
required for sole source acquisitions. They are pre-solicitation, pre-FPR, and pre-award
for competitive. They are pre-negotiation and pre-contract award for sole source. Peer
reviews are also advisory, and are made up of senior leaders across DoD. DPAP chairs
the peer review. Peer Reviews are also required POST-AWARD for
Under what circumstances is ratification of an unauthorized commitment permitted? In
general, what are the generic Air Force (AFFARS) procedures for handling ratification
, actions? Who are the approval authorities for ratifications? - answerREFERENCE: FAR
1.602-3; AFFARS 5301.602-3; AFFARS MP 5301.602-3 ANSWER: According to the
FAR, there are several limitations/circumstances that apply before ratification is
permitted: Supplies or services have been provided to and accepted by the
Government, or the Government otherwise has obtained or will obtain a benefit resulting
from performance of the unauthorized commitment; The ratifying official has the
authority to enter into a contractual commitment; The resulting contract would otherwise
have been proper if made by an appropriate contracting officer; The contracting officer
reviewing the unauthorized commitment determines the price to be fair and reasonable;
The contracting officer recommends payment and legal counsel concurs in the
recommendation, unless agency procedures expressly do not require such
concurrence; Funds are available and were available at the time the unauthorized
commitment was made The ratification is in accordance with any other limitations
prescribed under agency procedures. In general, the basic AFFARS MP is: The PCO
begins investigation (asks for docs and evidence); and the Commander (where
commitment occurred) provides w/in 30 days to PCO: Report on facts, corrective
actions, disciplinary action, signed statement from person involved, relevant
documentation/records regarding the unauthorized commitment. The PCO collects and
analyzes and if ratification is appropriate, prepares file, that includes: Summary of facts
by PCO that addresses all elements from FAR 1.602-3 Legal opinion Invoice from
contractor Report from commander as above Ratification statement (per language of
reg If more than $30K, PCO forwards file through wing commander for review by
SCO/SCCO (per language in reg). After execution by the appropriate authority, the CO
processes. The contract and the ratification statemen
You brief an objective at Business clearance. At negotiations, the Contractor is willing to
settle at a number higher than your objective. What do you do? - answerREFERENCE:
AFFARS 5301.9000 ANSWER: If the Business Clearance Approval Authority provided
no latitude, you can: Reject the offer and continue negotiations. Shake hands contingent
upon CAA approval of the number (this seems applicable only if face-to-face
negotiations; if email based, seek CAA approval before hand shake). Get a subsequent
Business Clearance from the CAA.
What are the elements of a contract? - answerREFERENCE: Government Contracts
REFERENCE Book, 4th Edition ANSWER: A generic definition of contract would be an
agreement, enforceable by law, between two or more competent parties, to do or not to
do something not prohibited by law, for a legal consideration. Breaking down that
definition, there must be legal capacity to enter the contract, an offer, acceptance,
consideration, clear and unambiguous terms, and must not include performance of acts
that are illegal.
What is consideration? - answerREFERENCE: Government Contracts REFERENCE
Book, 4th Edition ANSWER: Consideration is the inducement to a contract: the cause,
motive, price, or impelling influence that leads a party to enter a contract. A binding
contract requires an offer, acceptance of the offer, and consideration. Consideration
generally requires two elements: (1) something must be given that the law regards as of
As a PCO, what kinds of things could cause you to lose your warrant? - answer
REFERENCES: FAR 1.603-4; AFFARS MP 5301.603A PCO loses his/her warrant upon
retirement from employment, reassignment from the position requiring a warrant,
termination of employment, or unsatisfactory performance. Terminations must be
submitted in writing using the "Contracting Officer Appointment/Warrant Eligibility
Transfer/Termination Request" template in AFFARS, and requests must be submitted at
least 14 days in advance of the requested termination along with the reason.
You brief an objective at Business clearance. At negotiations, the Contractor is willing to
settle at a number higher than your objective. What do you do? - answer REFERENCE:
AFFARS 5301.9000 ANSWER: If the Business Clearance Approval Authority provided
no latitude, you can: Reject the offer and continue negotiations. Shake hands contingent
upon CAA approval of the number (this seems applicable only if face-to-face
negotiations; if email based, seek CAA approval before hand shake). Get a subsequent
Business Clearance from the CAA.
As a PCO, what kinds of things could cause you to lose your warrant? -
answerREFERENCES: FAR 1.603-4; AFFARS MP 5301.603A PCO loses his/her
warrant upon retirement from employment, reassignment from the position requiring a
warrant, termination of employment, or unsatisfactory performance. Terminations must
be submitted in writing using the "Contracting Officer Appointment/Warrant Eligibility
Transfer/Termination Request" template in AFFARS, and requests must be submitted at
least 14 days in advance of the requested termination along with the reason.
You are the Contracting Officer on a very large aircraft sustainment contract with world-
wide performance requirements. There are contractor personnel stationed at various
bases that provide maintenance and repair capabilities, via the contract's Over and
Above clauses, should organic repair not be available. The Program Manager has just
notified you of an incident that occurred last week at Frankfurter Air Base in Germany
where an aircraft was damaged and required repair, but tells you not to worry as the
aircraft has already been repaired and returned to service by the Contractor's on-site
mechanics. The contract stipulates that before any repairs can begin, written
authorization from the CO or the on-site Contracting Officer's Technical Representative
(COTR) must be provided as the authorization allows the contractor to begin work and
incur costs that will be paid under the contract. You ask the Program Manager fo -
answerREFERENCES/ AUTHORITY: FAR 1.602-3 One of the first steps is to determine
who the "authorizing" official was. If the individual was an A&AS employee, the
authorization to repair the aircraft was not valid as any action that approves the
expenditure of funds is Inherently Governmental and cannot be performed by a
contractor. If the individual was not a contractor but was a legitimate employee of the
U.S. Government you may have a Ratification Action provided the conditions for
,ratification can be met: (1) Supplies or services were received and accepted by the
Government or the Government has or will get a benefit from the unauthorized action;
(2) The ratifying official has the authority to enter into a contractual agreement; (3) The
resulting contract would otherwise have been proper if made by a warranted CO; (4)
The CO reviewing the unauthorized commitment determines the price to be fair and
reasonable; (5) The CO recommends payment and legal counsel concurs in the
recommendation, unless agency procedures expressly do not require such
concurrence; (6) Funds are currently and were available at the time the unauthorized
commitment was made; and(7) The ratification is in accordance with any other
limitations prescribed under agency procedures In either event, the individual did not
have the actual authority to commit the Government by authorizing the work. The
contractor, as well as the Frankfurter Air Base personnel, should also be reminded that
only the CO or his/her designated representative can authorize the expenditure of
funds.
You are the PCO in Source Selection and dutifully following the FAR, DFARS, etc., on a
particular issue. However, your higher leadership is now giving you "direction" which
you believe is contrary to your legal guidance. What do you do? Do you comply with the
law or higher leadership direction? - answerREFERENCES: FAR 1.602-2; AFFARS
5301.602-2; AFMC MP 5301.602-2 ANSWER: This is a classic example of how your
responsibilities as a PCO can sometimes conflict with your responsibilities as part of a
chain of command in the Air Force. While you typically want to comply with the orders of
your higher leadership, it may not be possible due to your responsibilities as a
warranted PCO. In this case, I would first determine the legal parameters of the issue.
Two citations from the regulations may help. First, AFFARS states that when there is
doubt or controversy about the interpretation of statutes, directives, and regulations, you
must seek legal advice. The issue at hand seems to have some controversy as to the
original legal guidance. Second, the AFMC MP says that it's up to the PCO and the
attorney to resolve any issues determined to violate statutes or that lack legal
sufficiency. If it can't be resolved, the PCO should highlight the issue in the clearance
request and briefing. With these things in mind, I would first check to see if the legal
guidance is mandatory or only advisory in nature. If mandatory, I would follow the legal
guidance and then work with my supervisor to help resolve the situation with my higher
leadership. I wouldn't need to "go it alone," but at the end of the day, it is my warrant on
the line and my responsibility to ensure the integrity of the procurement system. I won't
sign anything I don't feel comfortable signing. If there is flexibility in the legal guidance, I
would consult with the attorney again to bring up the potential alternate course of action,
and get his/her input, but I would ultimately determine whether or not to proceed and
then document the file accordingly.
What are the differences between apparent, implied and express authority? -
answerREFERENCE: SGS-92-X003 v. United States; Formation of Gov't Contracts;
Roy v. United States; Distribution of Postal Consultants, Inc. v. United States ANSWER:
Actual authority is either express or implied. Express actual authority to bind the
Government exists in a contract only when the Constitution, a statute, or a regulation
grants it to that agent in unambiguous terms. Implied actual authority exists when such
,authority is considered to be an integral part of the duties assigned to a Government
employee and cannot exist without prior express actual authority. Apparent authority
occurs when a principal makes others believe that she has conferred authority upon an
agent by holding them out to the public or a third-party as the principal's agent.
Apparent authority never binds the Government.
How does a PCO get their authority? - answerREFERENCE: FAR 1.602-1; FAR 1.603-
1 ANSWER: FAR 1.602-1 states that Contracting Officers must receive clear written
instructions as to the limits of their authority from the appointing authority. FAR 1.603-1
states that agency heads or their designees may select and appoint contracting officers
and terminate their appointments. For AFMC, the role of appointing official has been
delegated to the Senior Center Contracting Official (SCCO), i.e. AFLCMC Director of
Contracting. In a broader sense, authority to pay debts and obligate the Government
stems from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants that authority to
Congress. Congress gives authority to the Department of Defense, who in turn gives
authority to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) (ASAF(A)), then to the
MAJCOM SCO (HQ AFMC/PK), to the SCCO (AFLCMC Director of Contracting), and
ultimately to the PCO.
MIRTS and Peer Review are hot topics in today's acquisition arena. Describe the
differences between a MIRT and a Peer Review. - answerREFERENCE: DFARS
201.170; AFFARS 5301.170; AFFARS MP 5301.9001(b) ANSWER: Multi-functional
Independent Review Teams (MIRTs) are comprised of cross-functional subject matter
experts (SMEs). They act as an advisor to the Clearance Approval Authority (CAA) by
validating each critical decision point (CDP), and are based on policy established in
2009. When clearance is required, the CAA must use a MIRT if the acquisition is over
$50M and competitive, but the CAA may waive the MIRT or even specific CDPs within
the MIRT based on acquisition/source selection history and procurement/source
selection experience of the acquisition team (MIRTs 1 & 4 are currently waived up to the
level of the SCCO's authority - $1B for competitive). Also, at the discretion of the CAA,
MIRTs can be used for competitive acquisitions < $50M or for sole-source at any dollar
threshold. The CAA appoints the SMEs to constitute the MIRT, and they will review and
assess CDPs as advisors. MIRTs will convene an out-brief with the source selection
team at the conclusion of each CDP. There are 2 Pre-Business Clearance CDPs: (1)
Review draft ASP brief/draft AP, and (2) Review Sections L & M of the RFP. The final 3
CDPs are Pre-Contract Clearance: (3) Review draft Competitive Range Brief or Award
w/o Discussions Brief, (4) Review draft FPR, (5) Review draft Source Selection Decision
briefing. Peer Review kicks in when we have an acquisition over $1 billion. There are
three Peer Reviews required for competitive acquisitions, and two Peer Reviews
required for sole source acquisitions. They are pre-solicitation, pre-FPR, and pre-award
for competitive. They are pre-negotiation and pre-contract award for sole source. Peer
reviews are also advisory, and are made up of senior leaders across DoD. DPAP chairs
the peer review. Peer Reviews are also required POST-AWARD for
Under what circumstances is ratification of an unauthorized commitment permitted? In
general, what are the generic Air Force (AFFARS) procedures for handling ratification
, actions? Who are the approval authorities for ratifications? - answerREFERENCE: FAR
1.602-3; AFFARS 5301.602-3; AFFARS MP 5301.602-3 ANSWER: According to the
FAR, there are several limitations/circumstances that apply before ratification is
permitted: Supplies or services have been provided to and accepted by the
Government, or the Government otherwise has obtained or will obtain a benefit resulting
from performance of the unauthorized commitment; The ratifying official has the
authority to enter into a contractual commitment; The resulting contract would otherwise
have been proper if made by an appropriate contracting officer; The contracting officer
reviewing the unauthorized commitment determines the price to be fair and reasonable;
The contracting officer recommends payment and legal counsel concurs in the
recommendation, unless agency procedures expressly do not require such
concurrence; Funds are available and were available at the time the unauthorized
commitment was made The ratification is in accordance with any other limitations
prescribed under agency procedures. In general, the basic AFFARS MP is: The PCO
begins investigation (asks for docs and evidence); and the Commander (where
commitment occurred) provides w/in 30 days to PCO: Report on facts, corrective
actions, disciplinary action, signed statement from person involved, relevant
documentation/records regarding the unauthorized commitment. The PCO collects and
analyzes and if ratification is appropriate, prepares file, that includes: Summary of facts
by PCO that addresses all elements from FAR 1.602-3 Legal opinion Invoice from
contractor Report from commander as above Ratification statement (per language of
reg If more than $30K, PCO forwards file through wing commander for review by
SCO/SCCO (per language in reg). After execution by the appropriate authority, the CO
processes. The contract and the ratification statemen
You brief an objective at Business clearance. At negotiations, the Contractor is willing to
settle at a number higher than your objective. What do you do? - answerREFERENCE:
AFFARS 5301.9000 ANSWER: If the Business Clearance Approval Authority provided
no latitude, you can: Reject the offer and continue negotiations. Shake hands contingent
upon CAA approval of the number (this seems applicable only if face-to-face
negotiations; if email based, seek CAA approval before hand shake). Get a subsequent
Business Clearance from the CAA.
What are the elements of a contract? - answerREFERENCE: Government Contracts
REFERENCE Book, 4th Edition ANSWER: A generic definition of contract would be an
agreement, enforceable by law, between two or more competent parties, to do or not to
do something not prohibited by law, for a legal consideration. Breaking down that
definition, there must be legal capacity to enter the contract, an offer, acceptance,
consideration, clear and unambiguous terms, and must not include performance of acts
that are illegal.
What is consideration? - answerREFERENCE: Government Contracts REFERENCE
Book, 4th Edition ANSWER: Consideration is the inducement to a contract: the cause,
motive, price, or impelling influence that leads a party to enter a contract. A binding
contract requires an offer, acceptance of the offer, and consideration. Consideration
generally requires two elements: (1) something must be given that the law regards as of
