Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Contracting1

Service Contract Act and SF 182's

12 posts in this topic

Ladies and Gents,

You'll have to excuse me as I'm new to this site.

I'm currently located in Okinawa, Japan and have come across a ligitimate question raised by a fellow contracting officer in the contracting community. The question is... Does the Service Contract Act apply to training when the training is ordered by use of the SF 182/GPC? If so, is it already incorporated into the document and if it is, where can I find it? If not, under what authority does the Government have the right not to use the SF 182 for training under $25k on and the Service Contract Act not apply?

Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is... Does the Service Contract Act apply to training

The short answer is no.

See 29 CFR 541 Subpart D

? 541.303 Teachers.

(a) The term ?employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity? in section 13(a)(1) of the Act also means any employee with a primary duty of teaching, tutoring, instructing or lecturing in the activity of imparting knowledge and who is employed and engaged in this activity as a teacher in an educational establishment by which the employee is employed. The term ?educational establishment? is defined in ?541.204( B ).

( B ) Exempt teachers include, but are not limited to: Regular academic teachers; teachers of kindergarten or nursery school pupils; teachers of gifted or disabled children; teachers of skilled and semi-skilled trades and occupations; teachers engaged in automobile driving instruction; aircraft flight instructors; home economics teachers; and vocal or instrumental music instructors. Those faculty members who are engaged as teachers but also spend a considerable amount of their time in extracurricular activities such as coaching athletic teams or acting as moderators or advisors in such areas as drama, speech, debate or journalism are engaged in teaching. Such activities are a recognized part of the schools' responsibility in contributing to the educational development of the student.

( c ) The possession of an elementary or secondary teacher's certificate provides a clear means of identifying the individuals contemplated as being within the scope of the exemption for teaching professionals. Teachers who possess a teaching certificate qualify for the exemption regardless of the terminology ( e.g., permanent, conditional, standard, provisional, temporary, emergency, or unlimited) used by the State to refer to different kinds of certificates. However, private schools and public schools are not uniform in requiring a certificate for employment as an elementary or secondary school teacher, and a teacher's certificate is not generally necessary for employment in institutions of higher education or other educational establishments. Therefore, a teacher who is not certified may be considered for exemption, provided that such individual is employed as a teacher by the employing school or school system.

(d) The requirements of ?541.300 and Subpart G (salary requirements) of this part do not apply to the teaching professionals described in this section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contracting1,

Also, the SCA does not apply in Japan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contracting 1 - This OPM website will give you the basics on procurement of training and use of the SF-182. An intended starting point to do more research on your own with regard to your agency policy, delegations of authority, SCA regulations, etc. The general rule is that in some cases delegation of authority to procure something can be made to someone other than a Contracting Officer and as already noted application of such things as SCA are not applicable. It does get somewhat complicated so I encourage some self research including at least a look see at this website

http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/pubs/handbook/lrbsa12.asp#Form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do realize the SCA doesn't apply in Japan. I'm more or less concerned with training requirements that take place in the states as I have been in discussion with my highers stating we wouldn't have been given the authority to use SF 182's up to $25k if SCA applied. I just couldn't find anything to support my reasoning. I think I have it now. Thanks all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a few more SF 182 questions.

1. Would you consider "commercially available" training to be conducted overseas, still "commercially available"? For Example: Company A provides this trianing/curriculum to the general public as well as the military. However, the military has asked Company A to conduct the training outside of the United States. Does this mean the training is no longer "commercially available" and the training should be done on contract vice SF 182?

2. The SF 182 has a block for travel. Does this mean that travel can be included with the training but the total expense cannot exceed $25k? I personally believe it would not be included in the form if it wasn't authorized. However, some are under the impression as soon as travel is included, it now requires terms and conditions and contract should be written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The SF 182 has a block for travel. Does this mean that travel can be included with the training but the total expense cannot exceed $25k? I personally believe it would not be included in the form if it wasn't authorized. However, some are under the impression as soon as travel is included, it now requires terms and conditions and contract should be written.

Travel would not be included as part of the $25K. Remember all that is being paid for with the GPC is the training cost. The employee would have to pay for the travel expenses with their Government Travel Card; the GPC cannot be used to pay for employee travel expenses, it's not permissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the SF 182 is used to pay for the contractor to come to your location instead of the Government employee going to theirs? Meaning, Government travel card is not an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SF 182 saga continues. This question is directed more towards those of us involved with DON Policy.

The current GCPC policy (4200.99A) states regardless of dollar value when terms and conditions are used, a contract should be written. The question is:

Can the instructor be paid using the SF 182 when the normally commercially available class will be given outside the United States and it's outlying areas? Or would you consider the travel piece now becomes some sort of a term and condition and a contract should be written regardless of dollar value.

My first thought is it shouldn't matter where that curriculum or class is being taught, it's still a commercially available class and no other terms or conditions should apply and the SF 182 can still be used. However, recent discussion with some of my counterparts think otherwise as they believe the travel to somewhere outside the United States and it's outlying areas is something that no longer makes it commercially available and therefore requires terms and conditions.

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the reference that your counterparts are using for their belief that "the travel to somewhere outside the United States and it's outlying areas is something that no longer makes it commercially available..."? Just wondering as the FAR definitiions of commercial item and COTS along with application of FAR Part 12 make no reference to inside or outside the US except in application of the Buy American, Trade Agreements, etc. as appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is silly. The agency responsible for SF 182 is the Office of Personnel Management. Here is what its Training Policy Handbook, http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/pubs/handbook/lrbsa12.asp, says about use of the form:

"Use of the Training Authorization Form

Agencies may use an authorized training form to procure and certify payment of training expenses through Government or non-Government facilities. The form is certified by training officials and supervisors instead of the contracting officer under a procedure negotiated by the two offices and addressed in the agency's administrative directives. Comp. Gen. B-210334 (July 14, 1983).

Under typical negotiated procedures, the Training Authorization Form (SF-182) or equivalent is authorized for use to obligate funds, contract for training, and certify payment of approved training expenses under the following conditions:

the training cost of a single training event, program, or instructional service does not exceed the simplified acquisition process dollar limit established by U.S. General Services Administration;

the cost is of a fixed nature, i.e., price per student or price per course, program, or service; and

the program, course, or instructional service is off-the-shelf and no modification or development resulting in increased cost to the Government is needed to meet the organization's needs.

The Training Authorization Form is also used for requesting, approving, and certifying payment for attendance at meetings, conferences, seminars, and symposia where the primary purpose is to train an employee to meet a performance improvement related need. The form is not used to purchase general supplies, training equipment, or non-training services.

When an agency training course or program requires new design and development, the authorized contracting officer contracts for the service on behalf of and as requested by the responsible training or management official.

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) announced the new SF-182 form entitled "Authorization, Agreement, and Certification of Training." The electronic SF-182 will enable OPM to maintain consistency in collecting training data and will assist Agencies in reporting training requirements.

The electronic SF-182 form can be downloaded at http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/index.asp or http://www.opm.gov/forms/html/sf.asp."

According to that, the training office and the contracts office are supposed to agree on the use of the form. It's use is limited. Beyond what is quoted above, there are no governmentwide procedures, only agency specific procedures. I suggest that Contracting1 leave Wifcon and go to the training office and ask for guidance. If as I suspect the training office and the contracting office have not negotiated anything, then it would appear that you must follow the rules in FAR and not use the form, unless you are willing and able to improvise, adapt, and overcome, which appears not to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give you an example of how it can work. Your office is overseas. You want to send 20 people to a regularly scheduled 3-day course, but you do not want to pay for travel and subsistence for 30 people. Tuition per person is $1,000. The course is standard and nothing needs to be developed. There are two ways to go:

1. Arrange for the trainer to come to you, instead of you sending 30 people. Prepare 30 SF 182s, one for each student. Since the tuition is only $1,000, there are no applicable contract clauses. This is not splitting requirements, because each person must register individually. The contract bills for each student individually.

2. Prepare one SF 182 and append a schedule of 30 names. Have the contractor bill for each individually, but in a single invoice.

3. If idiots are running the the contracting office they can issue a $30,000 purchase order.

Which to use? If I were running that contracting office it would be No. 1 or 2. I'll be damned if I am going to issue a purchase order. I am not buying a course, I am buying 30 registrations for a course. Each person is individually registered and each will get individual credit. The training office and I will negotiate and document an agreement on the procedure and end of story. This is not splitting requirements. The procedure can be justified on economic grounds. In all my years in contracting and providing training, I have never heard of a contracting office getting written up for using procedure 1 or 2.

Use your heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0