Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About justin.wilson

  • Rank
  1. So I will say that my agency is non-DOD. And I do know that other offices in my agency do not have this same policy. That combined with not finding any policy regarding this practice from any level above the office tells me that there is not an agency level policy to do so.
  2. Wow, I really appreciate all of the input. It seems as though the focus has been on the Contracting Officer's ability to delegate signing of actions, which from what I am reading holds true. Referring back to the original post, I was curious to see if anyone else has operated under this type of structure and, if so, was it ever challenged. With 450 views of the post and no responses to that effect, it appears that the answers to those questions are "no". Or, at least not from anyone with an Wifcon account to post replies. I have done some searching for precedence with GAO, COFC, and CBCA
  3. I suppose I am applying the simplistic view that authority to bind the Government is only delegable in the form of a warrant issued by the HCA (or whomever is assigned) and subject to the limitations stated within that warrant - so in that sense I would think the contracting officer is prohibited from delegating their authority. Case in point, a Contracting Officer may appoint a COR, or a ACO, both of which would have to have their own warrants in order to legally bind the Government even acting in their delegated roles. Although you raise an interesting point regarding a separate, documente
  4. Your response doesn't seem rude to me at all. I don't plan on any whistleblowing or anything based upon responses here. I suppose I was just interested in seeing if the practice was more common than it appeared to me. Like I said, I am not at all rounded enough to know other contracting activities' policies and was thinking this forum may be able to provide some insight. I also am very curious if somehow someone here has insight regarding the practice being challenged (whether in terms of contracting litigation or in HR aspects). I know the HR aspect isn't exactly germane in this forum, b
  5. I have recently transitioned to a new agency and have been surprised by a local policy that states "As a general rule, the contract specialist originating a document signs it as the CO (Contracting Officer) after all required reviews." In practice, this language is cited supporting the fact that a specialist (non-warrant holder) would actually sign contract actions, or a contracting officer may sign actions over their delegated warrant authority. Now, one of the levels of review required would be from a Contracting Officer that holds the required warrant authority and they would be required
  • Create New...