CORB exam with solutions
2024
//As a PCO, what kinds of things could cause you to lose your warrant? - ANSWERS-
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? - ANSWERS-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? - ANSWERS-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 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 -
ANSWERS-REFERENCES/ 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? - ANSWERS-REFERENCES: 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? - ANSWERS-
REFERENCE: 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? - ANSWERS-REFERENCE: 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. - ANSWERS-REFERENCE: 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? - ANSWERS-REFERENCE: 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
2024
//As a PCO, what kinds of things could cause you to lose your warrant? - ANSWERS-
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? - ANSWERS-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? - ANSWERS-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 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 -
ANSWERS-REFERENCES/ 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? - ANSWERS-REFERENCES: 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? - ANSWERS-
REFERENCE: 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? - ANSWERS-REFERENCE: 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. - ANSWERS-REFERENCE: 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? - ANSWERS-REFERENCE: 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
