CONTRACTING OFFICER WARRANT
BOARD EXAM 2025 CURRENTLY
TESTING FINAL EXAM AND
PRACTICE EXAM QUESTIONS
COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH
DETAILED VERIFIED ANSWERS
/ALREADY GRADED A+
You have a commercial item acquisition for which you
are the Contracting Officer. The Program Manager
comes to your office and asks you to explain how a
commercial item is supported for reasonableness. You
tell the PM that FAR has an order of preference that
involves three steps. Please explain what these three
steps are and provide examples for each step. -
....ANSWER...Step 1. Determine if information is
available within the government. Examples - Prices
from other government contracts, ASC/PKF historical
information, government independent cost estimates,
historical data from other government services or
agencies, records within DCAA and DCMA.
Step 2. Determine if information is available from
sources other than the offeror. Examples - Market
,Research, published market prices, published price lists
from both the offeror and other vendors, information
from other vendors.
Step 3. Obtain information from the offeror. Examples -
Prices at which the same or similar items have
previously been sold in the commercial marketplace
(sales data), catalogs, market priced items (market
quotes from the vendor), cost or pricing data from the
vendor that will not be certified.
You are the Contracting Officer in Source Selection and
dutifully following the FAR and 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 legal guidance or the higher direction of
leadership? - ....ANSWER...First check whether the
particular legal guidance is mandatory or advisory.
Check out how much discretion you have. It may be
that you were being too strict or literal and what is
being directed is within your discretion. Once you
determine the legal parameters, if there is still a conflict,
discuss it with your supervisor, and possibly others in
the chain of command in resolving the issue with higher
leadership. The point is you do not have to "go it alone".
Worse case scenario, if all this fails, remember that it is
your warrant on the line. It is your obligation to ensure
,the integrity of the procurement system, and if that
means that you won't sign off on something, then that
may be the answer.
As the Contracting Officer, you were involved in a
source selection for the overhaul and maintenance
(which includes painting) of the C-130 fleet. The effort
was competed among the incumbent ALC and several
commercial repair facilities. A contractor won the
competition and you issued a Requirements Contract,
with FAR clause 52.216-21, for a performance period of
one year. The contract also includes a three-year option.
Prior to award, a Pre-Award Survey was performed by
DCMA. DCMA verified that the contractor had the
capability, quality control, and adequate capacity.
However, after the first few units were painted, despite
passing quality inspections, your Program Manager was
unsatisfied with the quality of the paint jobs. He tells
you that the contractor's paint job doesn't compare to
the quality work of the ALC. Subsequently, your
Program Manager directs the next few C-130s be
delivered to the ALC for painting, wh -
....ANSWER...Since it is very early in the performance
period, the contractual limits have not likely been met.
No other condition justifies exception, per the
Requirements clause (FAR 52.216-21) in the contract.
Therefore, The Program Manager will violate the
, conditions of the Requirements Clause by redirecting
any work away from the contractor. The successful
bidder's proposal was based on receiving all estimated
work; subsequently, the Program Manager risks legal
action (a claim) from the successful contractor.
One point you might bring up is that the contract term
is only for one year. If the PM is unhappy with the
"quality" of the contractor's performance, even though
the work complies with the contract, he should review
the contractual requirements and determine if the
quality should be upgraded on a later procurement.
Perhaps, a higher quality requirement will result in less
frequent paint jobs, thereby saving money. On the other
hand, perhaps the higher quality is not necessary and
not worth a premium to simply make the aircraft look
better. In any event, the PM is obligated to send all
work to the successful contractor for one year, up to the
estimated amount, unless some authorized exception
exists, like an urgency that the contractor in unable to
perform.
By the way, the Program Manager might be tempted to
use the options as award-term incentives and convince
the contractor to increase the "quality" of the work
above the requirements. This could result in higher costs
to the government. Also, changing the quality terms in
BOARD EXAM 2025 CURRENTLY
TESTING FINAL EXAM AND
PRACTICE EXAM QUESTIONS
COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH
DETAILED VERIFIED ANSWERS
/ALREADY GRADED A+
You have a commercial item acquisition for which you
are the Contracting Officer. The Program Manager
comes to your office and asks you to explain how a
commercial item is supported for reasonableness. You
tell the PM that FAR has an order of preference that
involves three steps. Please explain what these three
steps are and provide examples for each step. -
....ANSWER...Step 1. Determine if information is
available within the government. Examples - Prices
from other government contracts, ASC/PKF historical
information, government independent cost estimates,
historical data from other government services or
agencies, records within DCAA and DCMA.
Step 2. Determine if information is available from
sources other than the offeror. Examples - Market
,Research, published market prices, published price lists
from both the offeror and other vendors, information
from other vendors.
Step 3. Obtain information from the offeror. Examples -
Prices at which the same or similar items have
previously been sold in the commercial marketplace
(sales data), catalogs, market priced items (market
quotes from the vendor), cost or pricing data from the
vendor that will not be certified.
You are the Contracting Officer in Source Selection and
dutifully following the FAR and 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 legal guidance or the higher direction of
leadership? - ....ANSWER...First check whether the
particular legal guidance is mandatory or advisory.
Check out how much discretion you have. It may be
that you were being too strict or literal and what is
being directed is within your discretion. Once you
determine the legal parameters, if there is still a conflict,
discuss it with your supervisor, and possibly others in
the chain of command in resolving the issue with higher
leadership. The point is you do not have to "go it alone".
Worse case scenario, if all this fails, remember that it is
your warrant on the line. It is your obligation to ensure
,the integrity of the procurement system, and if that
means that you won't sign off on something, then that
may be the answer.
As the Contracting Officer, you were involved in a
source selection for the overhaul and maintenance
(which includes painting) of the C-130 fleet. The effort
was competed among the incumbent ALC and several
commercial repair facilities. A contractor won the
competition and you issued a Requirements Contract,
with FAR clause 52.216-21, for a performance period of
one year. The contract also includes a three-year option.
Prior to award, a Pre-Award Survey was performed by
DCMA. DCMA verified that the contractor had the
capability, quality control, and adequate capacity.
However, after the first few units were painted, despite
passing quality inspections, your Program Manager was
unsatisfied with the quality of the paint jobs. He tells
you that the contractor's paint job doesn't compare to
the quality work of the ALC. Subsequently, your
Program Manager directs the next few C-130s be
delivered to the ALC for painting, wh -
....ANSWER...Since it is very early in the performance
period, the contractual limits have not likely been met.
No other condition justifies exception, per the
Requirements clause (FAR 52.216-21) in the contract.
Therefore, The Program Manager will violate the
, conditions of the Requirements Clause by redirecting
any work away from the contractor. The successful
bidder's proposal was based on receiving all estimated
work; subsequently, the Program Manager risks legal
action (a claim) from the successful contractor.
One point you might bring up is that the contract term
is only for one year. If the PM is unhappy with the
"quality" of the contractor's performance, even though
the work complies with the contract, he should review
the contractual requirements and determine if the
quality should be upgraded on a later procurement.
Perhaps, a higher quality requirement will result in less
frequent paint jobs, thereby saving money. On the other
hand, perhaps the higher quality is not necessary and
not worth a premium to simply make the aircraft look
better. In any event, the PM is obligated to send all
work to the successful contractor for one year, up to the
estimated amount, unless some authorized exception
exists, like an urgency that the contractor in unable to
perform.
By the way, the Program Manager might be tempted to
use the options as award-term incentives and convince
the contractor to increase the "quality" of the work
above the requirements. This could result in higher costs
to the government. Also, changing the quality terms in
