Jamaal Valentine

Works for me...I like it!

@napolik I don't remember what the 'it' was or what I was getting at ... I think I was referring to the FAR's requirement that contracting officers comply with all rules (laws, regulations, procedures, etc.); and the federal and DoD rules that require agencies to record the obligation of the minimum quantity at the time of contract award. Those rules have been cited several times in this thread (e.g., case law, GAO Redbook, DoD FMR). I don't think that's a controversial statement. Is it?

"Obligation A definite commitment that creates a legal liability of the government for the payment of goods and services ordered or received, or a legal duty on the part of the United States that could mature into a legal liability by virtue of actions on the part of the other party beyond the control of the United States." COs create obligations (legal liabilities) within their delegated authority.

@joel hoffman I honestly can't make heads or tails out of the details I would need to make a decision (exercise the 9 CLINs and be done). However, I thought Guardian got his/her answer a while ago and that's all that matters to me. This thread started out confusing and gained momentum with all sorts of opinions and sidebars added in just for fun (often the case here and I'm guilty of it). For example, I don't know where you came up with there being 'no need'... I only recall the OP saying they didn't have funding. It's okay though; Guardian seems satisficed.

I'm retiring from this thread. My head and heart hurts.

FAR does require it (the clear requirement- and exception to citing the accounting classification is for data elements in line items and subline items). But let's say FAR doesn't expressly convey the obligation of funds recording requirements...maybe its because recording is a comptroller function and comptrollers have their own book(s) of rules. Also, FAR includes a provision that contracting officers must comply with these other rules: "no contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law [statute or case law], executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met."

Can we get a recap? Is the question whether or not IDIQ minimum guarantees need to be 'funded'? Also, are we talking DoD contracts or federal contracts in general?

From one of Carl's references: "Give GAO B-308969 dated 31 May 2007 (http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/308969.pdf) a read. It states rather unequivocally: "An agency must record an obligation against its appropriation at the time that it incurs a legal liability for payment from that appropriation. B-300480.2, June 6, 2003; B-300480, Apr. 9, 2003; 42 Comp. Gen. 733, 734 (1963)... " (bold added)

@Guardian This may be painful, but remember you asked for it. What are the differences? (noting that “option” means a unilateral right in a contract by which, for a specified time, the Government may elect to purchase additional supplies or services called for by the contract, or may elect to extend the term of the contract.) Are you simply distinguishing the option (unilateral right) from the period (term of the option)? FAR Subpart 17.2 references options, option quantities and periods. Let's start with the rules. FAR 4.1003 establishes requirements for separate line items. FAR 4.1005-1 outlines the data elements for line items; paragraphs ( c ) & ( d )--in particular--relate to options. Pair this information with the information, and common methods, at FAR 17.204. How does your contract identify the options under 52.217-9? (FAR 17.204(f)(1), (2), or (3)...maybe (g) or something different) FAR 17.204(f)(3) seems to apply because you provided that you have: You should be getting closer to refining (or defining) what an option is pursuant to your contract clause. (a unilateral right to exercise the identified schedule CLINS in strict accordance with their terms...but what are their terms? Synthesizing your contract terms & conditions including the schedule CLINs and option clause (52.217-9) will tell you) Presumably your option clause states (1) a preliminary notification requirement; and (2) a period within which the option(s) may be exercised. If you've satisfied these and the options are separately identified why wouldn't the contract terms provide the government the unilateral right to exercise all, some, or none of the options in strict accord?

No, why would I; I was responding to your opening question. No. Is it better than the original? (I'm skeptical that it's improved or a single question, but I'll check.) The beginners forum is for members who need basic help. It provides gentler and sometimes more responsive commentary. If you want help you'll need to ask a good question and/or use courtesy.

I don't understand the question. FAR 2.101 defines 'option'; FAR Subpart 17.2 prescribes policies and procedures for the use of options; and FAR 52.217-9 outlines the specific terms and conditions of a particular option to extend the term of a contract (see FAR 17.208(g)). I recommend asking your supervisor and/or posting in the beginners forum.

@bob7947 and @ji20874 Amen.

I presume the context is: In my mind, the Antideficiency Act is the universal requirement to fund obligations. The act prohibits federal agencies from obligations or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation. I don't think a universal definition of fund, funds, or funding has been used in this thread. Seems some are suggesting that funding occurs when an order with line of accounting is issued to a contractor. Some seem to think funding can come later - seemingly distinguishing between recording and funding, but not addressing ADA. I believe funding occurs much earlier during appropriation and commitment. No need for a mystery or guessing game though...everyone can explain what they mean. I haven't found a universal usage in FAR and its supplements neither. For example, what does 'obligate funds' mean here: 5316.504 Indefinite-Quantity Contracts (1) See MP5316.504 for the requirement to obligate funds when awarding indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. However, FAR Subpart 32.7, Contract Funding, which I cited earlier offers some insight: (bold emphasis added)

@ji20874 thank you ... I see what you mean. You're correct; they are different actions. I should have directed my thoughts to contract funding pursuant to FAR Subpart 32.7: "No officer or employee of the Government may create or authorize an obligation in excess of the funds available, or in advance of appropriations (Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341), unless otherwise authorized by law. Before executing any contract, the contracting officer shall -- (a) Obtain written assurance from responsible fiscal authority that adequate funds are available or (b) Expressly condition the contract upon availability of funds in accordance with 32.703-2." Funding can described as the appropriation (or continuing resolution) and administrative commitment of an appropriation (FAR 32.702(a)). These happen in advance of an obligation (e.g., IDIQ minimum guarantee). Contract funding can be fully funded, partially (incrementally) funded, or subject to the availability of funds. After an obligation is funded and created it must be recorded within a timeframe. Requirements to fund obligations, by issuing an order, when awarding IDIQ contracts in the Air Force are based on a supplement stating: "obligation shall be recorded based upon the issuance of a delivery or task order for the cost/price of the minimum quantity specified...Recording and subsequently reporting the required obligation using anything other than a delivery or task order will result in the action not being reported in FPDS-NG. (See DoD 7000.14-R, Volume 3, Chapter 8, paragraph 080604)." Appropriation – Legal basis for withdrawing funds from the treasury and may contain specific provisions for specific expenditures. Commitment – an administrative reservation of funds from a responsible fiscal authority in anticipation of future obligation. Obligation – act legally binding the Government to make payment.

In what way(s)? Within context, it seems recording is tantamount to funding and vice versa, but not necessarily issuing an order. (based on the rules regarding over- or underrecording) I guess what I am really questioning is if you can have recording without funding or funding without recording. I should revist the definitions of Fiscal Law terms like appropriation, commitment, obligation, and recording. (appropriation is probably the real 'funding') Reminds me of this myth-busting post: