Jump to content

Vouchers for Professional Services


Guardian

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

Also some agencies receive user fees for part of their operations but still must uniformly follow FAR like Customs and Border Protection and State

I’m thinking that their fees go to the Treasury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, formerfed said:

The use of non-appropriated terminology here is confusing things.  A non-appropriated fund activity is different from agencies that receive user fees. In the latter case, Congress authorizes those agencies to spend money they collect.  That usually occurs through separate authorization bills.  In many cases the legislation that granted authority to spend money collected are exempt from some or all on procurement statutes - Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, USPTO, and others fall into this category.  But those are not considered NAF activities.

@formerfedAre you sure about that?  At least one of the agencies you mentioned above is not subject to apportionment for purposes of 31 U.S. Code Chapter 15 or any other provision of law, but rather has authorization under its own chapter of a separate title.  Their funds, derived from certain fees, "shall not be construed to be Government funds or appropriated monies...."

12 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Guardian did not ask a question in the opening post. Instead, he described a situation and some concerns that he had about it. My reaction at this point is that his concerns are misplaced. If he is buying for a NAFI, and if the NAFI has not adopted the FAR as a matter of policy, then he is free to make any prudent business deal that he can in accordance with his organization's policies, and should go to it.

@Vern EdwardsNotwithstanding my response to formerfed above, the NAFI for which I work, has adopted the FAR as a matter of policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Guardian said:

 

@Vern EdwardsNotwithstanding my response to formerfed above, the NAFI for which I work, has adopted the FAR as a matter of policy.

Well, this has been a deep rabbit hole for a couple of days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Guardian said:

has adopted the FAR as a matter of policy.

And its related supplements?   Just wondering how deep the policy makes your entity reach with regard to performing a procurement.  Or is there no supplement that relates to the parent Department/agency of your NAFI?   Sometimes a supplement offers further advantages with regard to certain procurements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

Well, this has been a deep rabbit hole for a couple of days.

@joel hoffmanI could have told the gurus where I work, but I wanted to make it interesting.  With a little detective work, based on the clues I provided, it would not be that difficult to find out.

27 minutes ago, C Culham said:

And its related supplements?   Just wondering how deep the policy makes your entity reach with regard to performing a procurement.  Or is there no supplement that relates to the parent Department/agency of your NAFI?   Sometimes a supplement offers further advantages with regard to certain procurements.

@C Culham

Yes, we have adopted the related supplements of our parent agency through CFR.  My understanding is that when confronted with particularly challenging situations, we resolve to do what is in our best interest, cherry-pick the regulations we choose to apply and document the file.  It's not always easy to get clear answers from those tasked with advising on these matters.  People tend to have an aversion to the perpetual "gadfly."  It's always, "just get it done; it's Q4 [etc.]"  That logic is less than sound; we are always busy.  Too busy for change or to educate ourselves, but always enough time to suffer the pain and ineffectiveness of repeating wrongful or less than optimal ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

I could have told the gurus where I work, but I wanted to make it interesting.  With a little detective work, based on the clues I provided, it would not be that difficult to find out.

 @Guardian That's asinine. The likely and justified reaction to that is to hold you in contempt. From now on I will disregard all threads initiated by you. I should not have responded to your opening post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Guardian said:

@formerfedAre you sure about that?  At least one of the agencies you mentioned above is not subject to apportionment for purposes of 31 U.S. Code Chapter 15 or any other provision of law, but rather has authorization under its own chapter of a separate title.  Their funds, derived from certain fees, "shall not be construed to be Government funds or 

I based my comment of the definitions of NAFI.  I did just see though an article including two Treasury Bureaus - US Mint and Comptroller of the Currency, as NAFIs.  I’m not sure if that is correct in light of all the other ways NAFI is used including GAO but the Mint and CCC do operate with independent funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

 @Guardian That's asinine. The likely and justified reaction to that is to hold you in contempt. From now on I will disregard all threads opened by you.

Yes, and I was being polite in my last post.  This has been a waste of several peoples’ time and resources, including mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, formerfed said:

I based my comment of the definitions of NAFI.  I did just see though an article including two Treasury Bureaus - US Mint and Comptroller of the Currency, as NAFIs.  I’m not sure if that is correct in light of all the other ways NAFI is used including GAO but the Mint and CCC do operate with independent funding.

@formerfed We are definitely an NAFI that operates with independent funding.

 

52 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

 @Guardian That's asinine. The likely and justified reaction to that is to hold you in contempt. From now on I will disregard all threads opened by you.

I sincerely hope you are pulling my leg, Vern.  I think you are.  I definitely value your advice and feedback.

5 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Yes, and I was being polite in my last post.  This has been a waste of several peoples’ time and resources, including mine. 

@joel hoffman I tried to provide every bit of information practicable to make the situation clear.  I thought that posters could remain largely anonymous and not disclose the specific agency for which they work.  Partly this is based on the need to keep certain information about active acquisitions private to promote fairness in the process, etc.  I did not intend to waste anybody's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I sincerely hope you are pulling my leg, Vern.  I think you are.  I definitely value your advice and feedback.

@GuardianI certainly am not pulling your leg.  In response to your opening post I should have asked what your point was and whether you had a question or were offering some proposition for discussion.

It was a grave offense on your part to withhold pertinent information in order to "make it interesting." You should have revealed early on that your agency has decided to apply the FAR to nonappropriated fund contract actions. Your failure to do so led us to waste time in responding to you. If you value someone's advice and feedback you should be clear about your intentions and forthcoming with information.

To all:

This thread highlights what I consider to be a serious problem at Wifcon Forum. Too many persons who open threads at Wifcon Forum don't devote the time and effort necessary to communicate clearly and to write thoughtful inquiries or clear propositions for discussion.

In business, communication is half the battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

Yes, we have adopted the related supplements of our parent agency through CFR. 

Does this mean that your agency "policy" has in fact gone through a similar process as described in FAR Subpart 1.3?  If so then I would suggest that it is in fact "regulation" and not policy.   

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

My understanding is that when confronted with particularly challenging situations, we resolve to do what is in our best interest, cherry-pick the regulations we choose to apply and document the file.

Which in turn makes this not appropriate.  However if the policy is just that and not published nor codified I could see where cherry picking is okay.

PS - As to the most recent posts regarding intentions I agree with the stated concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2022 at 9:59 AM, Guardian said:

From discussions from our bureau chief, our agency has been "following" the FAR on its own accord for about two decades. 

@Vern Edwards Fair enough.  For the record, I did tell the forum both that my understanding is that we have been following the FAR for approximately two decades and that we use non-appropriated funds.  I have not worked at my current agency for that long; I provided the best information I had. 

43 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

It was a grave offense on your part to withhold pertinent information in order to "make it interesting." You should have revealed early on that your agency has decided to apply the FAR to nonappropriated fund contract actions. Your failure to do so led us to waste time in responding to you. If you value someone's advice and feedback you should be clear about your intentions and forthcoming with information.

@Vern Edwards Again, if you go back and read through the entire thread, you will see that I did reveal all of this.

I responded to Carl, "Our agency uses non-congressionally appropriated funds.  All I have gotten back from our attorney on that is that the bona fide need rule does not apply to us.  But, yes I would sign off on behalf of our agency, thereby obligating funds." 

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

@joel hoffman I could have told the gurus where I work, but I wanted to make it interesting

The latter part of that statement was tongue in cheek.  The first part was sincere.  I am not going to reveal at which agency I work, particularly when I am posting details about an active acquisition.  Please read what I wrote again.  I stated that I was not going to announce to all WIFCon registrants where I work.  Does anybody else get on here and state where they work specifically?

I'll end by saying that I posted the OP by trying my best to summarize the details.  By all accounts, my policy and legal departments tell us that we follow the FAR.  As questions were asked of me, I readily disclosed that my agency does not use appropriated funds, but that we apply the FAR.  I was not sure if we were an NAFI when you first used the term in this thread.  Just afterwards, I called my mentor at DoD and he and I spent part of an evening going over GAO cases related to NAFIs.  You are right, I could have been clearer.  I am devoted to words and language; I always have been.  But the street runs both ways.  I spend hours throughout the day writing to attorneys, directors and technical advisors, only to find that they seem not to have read what I wrote them.  I am flawed, but I seek to refine my skills every day.  I have scars and I've been knocked down plenty of times, but I keep getting back up and trying again.  With each subsequent attempt, I try to do better than I did before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

@GuardianYour OP left out two critical details: (1) that you were using nonappropriated funds and (2) that you were bound to follow the FAR. It took a few more posts for you to reveal those crucial facts. The identity of your agency was not crucial.

You now have another scar. Next time, try to do better than you did before.

@Vern Edwards Understood.  Thanks, Vern 🙂.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...