Unauthorized Commitments and Potential Responsibility

[sramrakha]

Hi,

I'm a procurement analyst with the government, and I'm doing some ratification training for our customers. I was wondering if anyone has an example of an unauthorized commitment that was not ratified and the responsible individual was held accountable for the costs?

I've researched the previous threads on this--there is a lot of great information there, but I didn't see anything along these lines.

Thanks!

[PSW]

The only example of this that I have seen was where the individual's supervisor declined to send the ratification request forward to the Contracting Officer. The individual had purchased a piece of artwork for the office without prior approval and her supervisor declined her request to have the government pay for it. That seems to be the only time the ratification requests get denied. Even when the Contracting Officer recommends denial they get approved by senior management.

[August]

I know of an instance when the price was not determined reasonable, and the ratification was made at a lower price than what the vendor invoiced for.

I don't know whether the vendor pursued the individual who made the unauthorized committment for the balance of the invoice or not.

Wouldn't the individual who made the unauthorized committment be held accountable for the costs by the vendor rather than the employee's agency?

I would expect the employee's performance record would be affected, but I don't know how the agency would hold the employee accountable for the cost to the vendor.

[Oyster]

Although most unauthorized commitments are ratified (in my experience), the most common reason that an UC is not ratified is because to do so would violate fiscal law. This happens when the service or supply purchased does not fall within the purpose of the appropriation. One example that I can remember was when a government person organized an entertainment event during an official conference and later attempted to get the Government to pay for it as a UC. It was a non-starter because the event was purely entertainment and therefore it could not be reimbursed with appropriated funds in light of the Purpose Statute and the Antideficiency Act. Remember that an UC can only be ratified if someone with authority (a KO) could have legally entered into the contract in the first place.

As to the second part of your question about being held accountable for the costs, that would be an issue strictly between the vendor and the person that made the unauthorized commitment. In other words, if an unauthroized commitment is not ratified, the Government simply is not paying and therefore the vendor will likely go after the individual that made the unauthorized commitment. (Maybe I misunderstood your question, but I though that you were asking if the Government tries to hold the individual responsible in that situation.) Alternatively, if it is a supply, the individual making the UC could always try to return it to the vendor.

That's my $.02.

[ji20874]

When acting as the chief of the contracting office a while back, I declined to ratify an unauthorized commitment. The purchase was for prescription medicine (eppie pens) -- the buyer was allergic to bee stings and thought all our first aid kits should have eppie pens, so he used his personal prescription to buy them for all the first aid kits. But personal medical needs are personal, and using one's prescription to buy medicine for use by another is criminal, so I declined to ratify the purchase.

[sramrakha]

Thanks, everyone for all of the great replies and information. I appreciate it!