2FARGone

@C Culham, @formerfed - thank you both for your insight/responses!

@C Culham - in relevant part, the letter states "Please note that this appointment does not authorize the COR to... approve any actions that would result in additional charges to the agency" and outlines duties to include "regularly monitoring and tracking payments, ensuring that the total dollar value of all invoices does not exceed the total contract value..." This is standard COR letter language at the agency.

Hello, WIFCON Community! Do you all consider the following scenario an unauthorized commitment and, thus, requiring a ratification to authorize payment? *A not-to-exceed (NTE) $30,000 task order is in place for labor-hour services. * The COR authorizes the Contractor to work beyond the $30,000 in obligated funds, which the Contractor performs and invoices for payment. I believe the scenario represents the COR committing an unauthorized commitment and would require a ratification in accordance with the FAR 1.602-3 process. Even if there is language in the task order noting the Contractor performs at its own risk past the NTE amount, I believe the COR still committed an unauthorized commitment since he/she directed the Contractor to perform beyond obligated funding. Once the ratification is approved (assuming all the conditions in FAR 1.602-3 are met), the Contracting Officer can modify the contract to obligate additional funding. Does this sound right?

@C Culham - thank you for the additional insight. The “effective date” point is a great one to make.

@Retreadfed - thank you for the quick response. That is what I am finding and I see that agencies have not taken it upon themselves to expressly state that COs are required to do so in their respective supplements/procedures. I would prefer to not have that written into my agency’s procedures.

Hello, WIFCON Community! Does anyone know if there is a specific regulation, law, case law, etc. that expressly prohibit a Contracting Officer signing a contract modification (or award) after the established period of performance start date? Is there any substantial consequence from this happening? From my research of the FAR and other agency supplements (as well as this website) I could not find any language that prohibits such an action or delves into the consequences, but Contracting Officers follow the inherent logic that they sign a contract action before or on the day of a performance start. We are receiving pushback from audit personnel because a Contracting Officer signed a modification after the period of performance started; they believe we should update our internal procedures to state that "Contracting Officers shall sign contract actions prior to their period of performance start," but I think that is unnecessary/overkill. I have not seen any other agency supplement that specifically states something to that effect (and the term "period of performance" itself is not a defined term in the FAR, etc.). Thank you!

@Vern Edwards @C Culham @formerfed thank you all for your insights! And Happy Thanksgiving!

Hi, C. Culham. Thank you for your perspective. My agency policy does state that an individual needs to be certified (unless if a waiver is approved and a plan is in place to eventually be certified) to be appointable as a COR. However, it is silent on any true adverse actions, consequences, etc. if a COR’s certification expires while actively serving as an appointed COR. And the OFPP guidance is silent as well.

Thank you, Vern, for the insight!

OFPP’s 2011 memo is the guiding policy document when it comes to FAC-COR requirement(s)(https://www.fai.gov/sites/default/files/pdfss/FAC-COR_20Sep2011.pdf). If a COR’s FAC-COR certification expires while serving as an appointed COR on a contract, does anyone know if there are any real ramifications (like an audit finding, etc.)? If so, what are they and what guidance/policy states them? The FAR is silent and the 2011 OFPP guidance only states that the CO “may revoke” the COR’s appointment on a contract if his/her certification expires. This is all I could find policy-wise, and this is just a discretionary action. Thank you!

@C Culham that is correct and the relevant FAR part 22 sections have been considered. I would not be including the FAR 52.222-46 provision, though, as these are commercial, professional services and there would not be a “meaningful” number of professional employees involved either way. Thank you for the insight throughout this topic!

@Vern Edwardsthank you for helping me through this. A bit Socratic method-esque! I am not applying SCA in these contractor 1102-equivalent requirements.

@Vern Edwards thank you again. I had read that reference previously, but the way I interpret, for example, “Requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction” and then reading the definition of “knowledge of an advanced type” in 29 CFR 541.301 of “work which is predominantly intellectual in character, and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment, as distinguished from performance of routine mental, manual, mechanical or physical work. An employee who performs work requiring advanced knowledge generally uses the advanced knowledge to analyze, interpret or make deductions from varying facts or circumstances...” could truly apply to 1102 positions and contractor 1102-equivalent positions. Those positions exercise a lot of discretion, judgment, analysis, etc. And then the “customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction” prong seems to be met by the requirement of the 1102 education requirement of 24 hours of learning in specific disciplines/subjects. Although the degree itself can be in any subject, it is still requiring a qualifying subset of specialized education within it. I also think the language in 29 CFR 541.301(f) could be interpreted broadly to include the 1102/1102-equivalent profession as it states “…the areas in which the professional exemption may be available are expanding. As knowledge is developed, academic training is broadened and specialized degrees are offered in new and diverse fields, thus creating new specialists in particular fields of science or learning.” Am I making a stretch with this interpretation?

@Vern Edwards thank you, Vern. So taking a look at the updated 1102 Individual Occupational Requirements, the Q&A, and the underlying 41 U.S.C. 433 guidance, there does not seem to be any definitive guidance on whether the series is considered “professional” or some other category exempt from SCA. It seems like the occupation would be “professional” based on the positive education requirement. I find it interesting that the 1102 series has its own Individual Occupational Requirements rather than being placed into any of the Group Qualification Standard categories like “Professional and Scientific,” “Administrative and Management,” etc. I am still stumped.

@ji20874 thank you for the insight. I would be talking about more so 1102-equivalent duties rather procurement technician duties. I feel there is “professional” nature to 1102-equivalent duties, so I would agree that SCA would seem to not apply, but was not sure if anyone thought differently. @Vern Edwards thanks for the reply. Are you referring to the 147 page document from December 1983 (https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/standards/1100/gs1102.pdf)? If so, I see a relevant section on pages 131 and 132 that discusses whether the 1102 series is “professional,” but we know the 1102 position has changed with the 1102 series requiring a Bachelor’s degree now (although there have been talks to rid of that requirement again). So, would the fact there is a degree requirement now make the 1102 position (and any contractor 1102-equivalent position) “professional” and, thus, exempt from SCA? @C Culham thank you for the information. Yes, I have been on that website and have reviewed the resources there, including the Fact Sheet you reference. In regards to your litmus test, do you think the duties of a contractor 1102-equivalent position (e.g., drafting pre-solicitation documents, solicitation documents, post-award contract administration, etc.) fall under a professional exemption and do not have SCA apply? Thank you all!