Jamaal Valentine Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 For Air Force personnel, meeting a warrant board is required [with exceptions] prior to increasing a limited warrant to a value of $5M or more, or issuing an unlimited warrant. If you have participated in an warrant board I would like to know your thoughts. I participated in my first mock warrant board, locally, and found it to be more challenging than I originally anticipated. It wasn't necessarily the questions, although that played a role, as much as it was the process (format, rules, objective, quality and content of questions and their predetermined [meet/did not meet] answers vs. a range of acceptable answers). Overall, I thought is was a good idea that could become a great idea with proper effort on crafting quality questions and process execution. What are you thoughts on warrant boards? Likes or dislikes? From AFFARS MP 5301.603 Quote 3.5. Warrant Board. 3.5.1. Upon successful completion of the warrant test, a candidate for an unlimited warrant or a limited warrant of $5M or more shall meet a warrant board. The purpose of the board is to further assess the candidate’s experience and qualifications for the warrant, communication skills, and overall demeanor in order to provide objective information upon which the appointing authority may make a reasonable judgment. 3.5.2. The board shall be chaired by the SCO/SCCO or designee, but in no event will the designee be at a level lower than the Deputy, Technical Director, Chief of the Clearance and Program Support Division, highest level contracting official at a geographically separated organization or detachment, Contracting Squadron Commander, Deputy, or equivalent. 3.5.3. In addition to the board chairperson, the warrant board may consist of as many of the following personnel available at the designated time for the board; however a minimum of five members must be present to constitute a quorum. Suggested board composition includes contracting office supervisors, a representative from the staff judge advocate office (strongly recommended), the Competition Advocate, a clearance/program support procurement analyst, a small business specialist, supervisors from other disciplines, and a cost/price analyst. MAJCOM/DRU representatives may participate in person, by telecom or by video teleconference at their discretion. 3.5.4. The SCO/SCCO’s focal point or designee shall schedule the warrant board and notify all participants of the time and location of the proceedings, and be present to record minutes (i.e., identity of board participants, questions posed, assessment of candidate responses, and board recommendations). 3.5.5. Once convened, the board may opt to discuss the candidate’s qualifications with the candidate’s sponsor (no lower than the candidate’s first level supervisor) without the candidate present. The warrant candidate shall answer and/or discuss in depth no fewer than five scenario-type questions on acquisition topics posed by the board--situations that COs may face in the environment they will be using their warrant. At least one scenario question must encompass pricing and fiscal law issues. The board will assess the ability of the prospective CO to analyze a situation and offer problem resolution and sound business advice, as well as the candidate’s overall poise during the board process. At the conclusion of the board, the members will deliberate and provide a recommendation to the board chairperson/appointing authority on the requested appointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 My initial thought is--what problem does a warrant board solve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted February 12, 2016 Report Share Posted February 12, 2016 The acquisition community has long debated the utility of warrant exams and warrant boards. I tried to get one established in Air Force Systems Command in the early 1980s, but there was too much working level opposition. Personally, I don't think much of warrant boards (interviews or oral exams). I long liked the idea of something like a bar exam, but suggesting such a thing is a good way to start an argument over something that I no longer care about. I now believe that the route to personal excellence does not pass through interviews and tests. There is no test so stringent that it cannot be rigged. There is no standard so low that it cannot be lowered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted February 15, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2016 Don: I've spent a couple days mulling over what problem warrant boards solve and I've drawn a blank. No formal test is wholly satisfactory as a means for screening prospective contracting officers and the warrant board doesn't evaluate written or research abilities at all. As-is, the board is administered like a written test given verbally. If the objective is to evaluate professional competency - the problem is still not solved and will not be solved. In my mind, a board should assess how well a candidate is able to communicate, orally and in writing, a proper answer (reference, course of action, etc.), which demonstrates the capacity to express critical and analytical thinking skills appropriately. Assessing one's ability to put together a sound and persuasive oral argument is of value, but is a single consideration. A warrant board, done right, as a quality control/standardization mechanism, could be a practical way to determine the knowledge, skill, abilities, and personal traits requisite of a contracting officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 On 2/15/2016 at 4:49 AM, Jamaal Valentine said: In my mind, a board should assess how well a candidate is able to communicate, orally and in writing, a proper answer (reference, course of action, etc.), which demonstrates the capacity to express critical and analytical thinking skills appropriately. Assessing one's ability to put together a sound and persuasive oral argument is of value, but is a single consideration. A warrant board, done right, as a quality control/standardization mechanism, could be a practical way to determine the knowledge, skill, abilities, and personal traits requisite of a contracting officer. Why not just observe the person doing their work? Review their written products, ask them questions about their procurements, observe their communication skills, etc. Why base your decision on observations from an artificial environment when you can base it on observations from a real environment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Who is to do the observing? What documentation would be required from the observer, if any? How would you ensure objectivity on the part of the observer, or is that not necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said: Who is to do the observing? What documentation would be required from the observer, if any? How would you ensure objectivity on the part of the observer, or is that not necessary? Supervisors, other contracting officers. No documentation required. When I first received a warrant, I didn't have to go to a warrant board. I had been working in the organization for two years and most of the contracting officers and supervisors knew me, knew my work, had reviewed my documents, had observed me at contract review boards, etc. Some would even come to me with contracting questions to get a second opinion. When the need arose for another warranted contracting officer, the supervisors got together and discussed who they thought was ready. They didn't need me to take a written test or an oral examination. They had all the information they needed from their own observations and those of other contracting officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
here_2_help Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 I'm confused. Shouldn't it be "Certificate of Appointment" Board? Didn't I read something about misuse of terms in a certain WIFCON blog entry? H2H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 What's wrong with "warrant"? It's still appears in the FAR. See FAR 33.210: Quote Except as provided in this section, contracting officers are authorized, within any specific limitations of their warrants, to decide or resolve all claims arising under or relating to a contract subject to the Disputes statute. In accordance with agency policies and 33.214, contracting officers are authorized to use ADR procedures to resolve claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
here_2_help Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Don, Quoting -- Warrant, as used in contracting officer authority – Appears once, incorrectly, at FAR 33.210 Contracting officer’s authority. The term used in FAR 1.603 and elsewhere is “Certificate of Appointment.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted February 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I just Googled 'contracting officer warrant' and a 'new contracting officer warrant' is defined in OFPP Policy Letter 05-01 as a warrant issued for the first time at a department or agency. I wonder when and why the term warrant came about...It's undisputed that it is in widespread common usage. Anyway, I found this quizzical short read on Contracting Officer [Warrant] Authority: http://www.navigant.com/~/media/WWW/Site/Insights/Construction/Did%20you%20Hear%20What%20Happened.ashx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 A certificate of appointment is a warrant. See the definition 2 of warrant in Black's Law Dictionary: "A document conferring authority, esp. to pay or receive money." The Armed Services Procurement Regulation in effect in 1978, when I received my first "warrant," called for appointment on DD Form 1539, "Certificate of Appointment." Quote 1-405.2 Appointment. (a) Except for those individuals who are designated contracting officers by position, appointment of contracting officers shall be made on DD Form 1539, Certificate of Appointment, issued by the appointing official (see F-200.1539). Any limitations on the scope of the authority to be exercised by the contracting officer, other than those contained in this Regulation, shall be entered on the face of the certificate. Certificates may be serially numbered. Contracting officers are given a certificate of appointment, which is the document that confers authority to them -- their warrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts