WinterMute Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 The KTR is getting trained by the unit to complete a task so IAW the contract, the KTR is trying to reimburse the unit for TDY cost to send someone there. I am trying to find out what vehicle we can use to reimburse the unit. Possible option is to cut a check but I am looking up the legalities of a contractor writing a check directly to the unit. I dont want a check to go to the US treasury as the unit would be losing funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 In my experience, one cannot reimburse a unit or appropriation directly without some specific statutory authority. That would amount to augmentation of an appropriation. As Vern Edwards quoted from the GAO Redbook, Chapter6, in an earlier post: "It is difficult to see, said an early decision, how a legislative prohibition could be more clearly expressed. 10 Comp. Gen. 382, 384 (1931). Simply stated, any money an agency receives for the government from a source outside of the agency must be deposited into the Treasury. This means deposited into the general fund (miscellaneous receipts) of the Treasury, not into the agency's own appropriations, even though the agency's appropriations may be technically still in the Treasury until the agency actually spends them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ji20874 Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 How about reducing the contract price to reflect the value of the Government-provided training services? And maybe even a note in CPARS to capture the contractor's failing and the necessity of the Government intervention to heolp the contractor be successful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 The KTR is getting trained by the unit to complete a task so IAW the contract, the KTR is trying to reimburse the unit for TDY cost to send someone there. I am trying to find out what vehicle we can use to reimburse the unit. Possible option is to cut a check but I am looking up the legalities of a contractor writing a check directly to the unit. I dont want a check to go to the US treasury as the unit would be losing funds.[/quot The KTR is getting trained by the unit to complete a task so IAW the contract, the KTR is trying to reimburse the unit for TDY cost to send someone there. I am trying to find out what vehicle we can use to reimburse the unit. Possible option is to cut a check but I am looking up the legalities of a contractor writing a check directly to the unit. I dont want a check to go to the US treasury as the unit would be losing funds. Winter quote, what do you mean by "...so in accordance with the contract..."? Also- are you referring to the cost to send a trainer to perform training?“ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
here_2_help Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Joel's question is a good one. If the contract requires that the unit provide a trainer and training services to the contractor, that cost should have been anticipated and the contract should have specified how it would be handled. If the contract does not require the training services, but the unit is providing them based on a perceived need to help the contractor successfully complete the task, then that is a different issue. (Why? springs to mind. Is there not a T4D clause?) I don't see how the unit can force a contractor to pay for something provided at the unit's discretion. But if you must have payment, and you want to keep the funds away from the Treasury, then I would think the best way would be to have the contractor credit its next invoice for a bilaterally agreed-upon amount. Hope this helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summerlady51 Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 If the unit is providing training because they are changing something and the contractor can't possible be already trained in the topic - i.e. new accounting system, then the unit will incur an unplanned cost with their appropriated funds. The contractor will cut a check to reimburse the unit for the necessary costs. The unit will process a cash collection and cite the line of accounting where the charges originally occurred in order to make their appropriated funds whole. These type of things fall into categories and not all of them are augmentation of your appropriation. If you collected funds where you never incurred a cost against your appropriaton, that would be augmentation. You can received funds either by receipt, reimbursement or refund. Only receipt needs to be deposited as a miscellaneous receipt to Treasury. The others are collected back to make your accounting books correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 If the unit is providing training because they are changing something and the contractor can't possible be already trained in the topic - i.e. new accounting system, then the unit will incur an unplanned cost with their appropriated funds. The contractor will cut a check to reimburse the unit for the necessary costs. The unit will process a cash collection and cite the line of accounting where the charges originally occurred in order to make their appropriated funds whole. These type of things fall into categories and not all of them are augmentation of your appropriation. If you collected funds where you never incurred a cost against your appropriaton, that would be augmentation. You can received funds either by receipt, reimbursement or refund. Only receipt needs to be deposited as a miscellaneous receipt to Treasury. The others are collected back to make your accounting books correct. summerlady, can you provide a citation for your view on reimbursing the unit for a collection obtained from a contractor for training a contractor employee? Beyond that question - if a unit is 'changing something and the contractor can't possibe be already trained in the topic", why isn't this a change to the contract with the firm providing the service? Why would the contractor have to reimburse the government for the impact of the change to support a new requirement that the contractor can't already be trained for the requirement? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts