ErinHamp10

You are right, Vern. I am aware of the irony.

Thank you all for taking the time to read and to reply. I needed someone outside of my office and organization to provide perspective. I especially appreciate the reference to FAR 1.102-4(e). As I was reviewing my warrant charts when writing my question, I knew something was escaping me, but I couldn't put my finger on it. It is something that I'll suggest to add to our training because the concept of exercising initiative and innovating processes is not taught. If it is not taught and is not part of common practice, recognizing a concept that is both permissible and of sound judgment becomes more difficult. My organization is also known for its adherence to tradition, so that mentality is ubiquitous and requires conscious effort to overcome. Regarding my discomfort, I am not a robot (or an android). As much as I would like to always be cool and tempered, I recognize my limitations. One cannot reason away discomfort because emotions are entirely irrational things. Relevant or no, emotions are pervasive. It is true; I am defending my right to feel uncomfortable, but do not conflate that with my saying that I will allow such discomfort to dictate my judgment. I am hoping that you appreciate that I am seeking guidance, perspective and knowledge even if it exposes me to criticism; such is where it led me. Also, I have never known a new CO who wasn't a little apprehensive and uncertain once the realization of their authority dawned on them. Most of my COs when I was a trainee were newly warranted, and I have dealt with varying levels experience, trust and paranoia. It is a humbling experience for me because now I can empathize with them whereas before I was the headstrong buyer who pushed them when I felt they were wavering. I have learned vicariously that it takes time to feel comfortable with a CO's authority, and in this case it will take time to create a flow and a level of confidence wherein you can trust the process and the people in it. C Culham correctly questioned the source; in my organization innovations, procedures and the ilk are not created from the bottom-up but are shared top-down. If there is innovation, it is not widely shared until it is mandated. It is a recipe for ignorance. I am fortunate that my direct management is allowing me to refine our processes for GPC EUP. Those who are executing the procedures were not included in their formation, so there were quite a few cracks exposed during implementation. If you are curious to see how we are addressing it, I'm more than happy to share. I initially asked policy for best practices for awarding these orders, but they were not responsive. I had to move on without them. The problem that we are having is that the individual in the PO who is releasing the notices and RFQs needs training to be that competent ordering official. That is why I created the following: 1) Market research memos that walk the PO through mandatory use sources per FAR and agency guidance. It took quite a bit of time up front, but I liberally used check boxes, exhausting all of the potential schedules, GWACS, etc. It serves the purpose of "checking" to see if they followed policy when conducting market research as well as performing the function of documenting the contract file. It's quick to complete and keeps us from getting write-ups. 2) A general information sheet for all of the information items that they tend to forget. For instance, they forgot to document the IGE and GPC independent acceptors. They were getting ahead of themselves with the whole "simplified" thing and overlooked the documentation that should be present because of the dollar value/requirement type, not the payment method. 3) Create supplemental addenda to the fair opportunity notices and RFQs. We are trying to go as simple as possible, so instead of using my agency's Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR), I chose the FOPR's cover letter and modified it for GPC usage. We standardized it across our office and created a template for each FAR authority. It allows us to make contractors aware of our selection methodology (technical acceptance and lowest price), GPC payment method, applicable agency clauses, and appropriate disclaimers. We want informed, intelligent responses and not just price quotes. 4) Standardized clause sets per contract or agreement and updating them once to twice a month and posting them where our PO can access them. (The PO should have all standardized info and templates up front and not through a piecemeal basis.) 5) An internal document checklist that includes GPC policy lest we forget. V/R - Erin

Hello, all. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read and/or respond. Before I ask my question(s), I want to give you all context. Background: My (federal) agency is spinning up its Government Purchase Card (GPC) Expanded Use Procedures (EUP) program. I volunteered, but as I was only a buyer, I went through the process to obtain my SAT warrant so that I would be one of the warranted cardholders. For my agency specifically, the guidelines state that we are authorized to buy supplies and services against (1) all Federal Government and DoD IDIQs and BPAs, and (2) as a method of payment for Purchase/Delivery Orders and "C" type contracts. (There's another, but it's not as relevant to this discussion.) If the requirement is on a pre-priced contract or agreement, if we are eligible to buy, and the buy is estimated to be $25K-SAT, then it eligible for GPC EUP. Almost everything will be commercial. Most of my requirements will fall under IT procurement (software and hardware) and will utilize the mandated ELAs, JELAs, and BPAs against MASs. (Think Air Force ELA, DoD JELA, DoD ESI, and GSA 2GIT.) Occasionally, we'll have a requirement that will be procured from NASA SEWP, which is a GWAC IDIQ. In summary, we'll be following the procedures under both FAR Subpart 8.4 and under FAR 16.505 depending upon the requirement. Because the GPC EUP are new to us, an internal guidebook was created to give us a gated process. The guidebook is organized pre-transaction (everything up to issuance of the delivery/task order) and post-transaction (documenting the contract file and GPC oversight/administration). According to this guidebook the program office (PO) performs the majority of the tasks pre-transaction, including issuing the "RFQ or solicitation." (In this context, I consider them both solicitations.) The PO creates a draft package and seeks permission from the warranted cardholder to issue the solicitation based on the draft documentation. Once responses are received, the finalized documentation (including a worksheet that performs the function of both a market research report and the abstract of quotations/offers) are sent to contracting. The warranted cardholder would then finalize the documentation (where necessary and if not accomplished during draft phase) and approve the worksheet. Of note, the built-in evaluation method for the worksheet is lowest priced technically acceptable (LPTA) with the three lowest-priced responses on the worksheet. This is how the process is supposed to work, but I have found that implementation eviscerated the appearance of simplicity. I have also learned the same PO is attempting this process with non-GPC EUP buys in another office. Here's my question: is my PO crossing a line? I am, of course, massively uncomfortable allowing someone who is not my buyer to post a solicitation in my stead. This individual (who told me how uncomfortable she is with her role) has never received 1102 acquisition training and never will. Buyers at least are obligated to obtain certification. The usual safeguards that allow contracting officers oversight are not present (i.e. review and approvals in contract writing software, access to contract files and documentation, etc.). I am sure anyone who has worked in contracting (or program management) can attest to the animosity often present in the relationship between contracting and its PO. I am certain this has to do with differing priorities and responsibilities. I suppose I have more to unpack in this situation. Here are more considerations/questions that have materialized after thinking and researching: 1) Does the FAR or its supplements allow delegation to issue solicitations? Non-warranted 1102s may do so with authorization from the contracting officer, but within my problem scenario the individual posting the RFQs and/or notices does not have "Contract Specialist" in his or her job title. Would delegating pre-award functions associated with solicitations violate any of the responsibilities as specified in FAR 1.602-2? The only delegation I have seen by contracting officers regards COR duties. My take is that the writers of the FAR assumed this would never happen, and it is not addressed. In my situation with my PO, do you think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulation regarding what is allowed per the FAR based on what is specified/not specified? (i.e. FAR says I can/cannot do A. B is not A and is not addressed in FAR; therefore, B is allowed.) 2) Is there a legitimate ethical question regarding checks and balances? (to borrow from an accounting principle) Is authorization to issue a solicitation considered sufficient, or does this process still seem unbalanced? Do you think you could affirmatively say my PO is crossing into my swim lane and attempting to perform CO/buyer tasks? 3) Are there any contradictions in the process that are obvious or may not seem obvious? I believe I have found one glaring contradiction. The flow chart for this GPC EUP guidebook shows the issuance of the solicitation to be in the market research phase. An RFQ issued during market research for planning purposes is not the same as an RFQ issued to obtain quotes from whence they are evaluated to determine the apparent awardee.(At least that is my interpretation.) Likewise, the Small Business Coordination Form should normally be completed following the conclusion of market research, yet this process tells me to seek coordination and approval in the midst of market research and while the buy is still in the "possession" of the PO. The guidebook procedures appear to place the implementation of the acquisition plan within the market research phase. 4) My PO believes they are in the right because they are finding the contracts and/or contractors on existing schedules, agreements and contracts. They are presenting to me the best option for their requirement. What are your thoughts on where contracting functions begin and when PO functions end? Do you think procuring under FAR Subpart 8.4 or under FAR 16.505 makes any difference? 5) When is an RFQ not a market research tool? Can you also address the PO's belief that RFQs are "non-binding"? What are the risks associated with believing that RFQs are non-binding? Do you agree with me in that my PO is conflating a fair opportunity notice with an RFQ? 6) Is there anything you think is pertinent that I have not addressed? I would like to close my question saying that I am not against innovation. That is why I volunteered. However, this whole situation feels....odd. Perhaps my policy group feels the same way; it has been almost two weeks since I submitted by questions to them, and if it were a simple response, it would be have been answered. On second thought maybe this forum was not the appropriate place to post this question, so if I need to fix that, please let me know. Thank you, all.