Jump to content

Anti-Deficiency Violation?


cblack20

Recommended Posts

Question and Scenario: Contracting Officer awards a modification for a lease contract. In this modification the lease term was extended, price per square foot was increased and the amount of square footage was increased. Additionally, the modification stated that the agency would pay for the build out of the expansion once accepted, in a lump sum.

Upon execution of the modification, the contracting officer did not secure any additional funding to fund the expansion or build out.

Would this be considered Anti- Deficiency violation or a delinquent obligation / unauthorized commitment.

The agency is provided an appropriation by congress and the funds needed would not exceed it.

It's a messy situation - any insight is appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Congress has appropriated funds for the lease, if those funds were available for obligation, there wasn't a violation of the Antideficiency Act. The fact that the contracting officer didn't receive or document an administrative commitment from finance and/or record an obligation is a separate issue. (There are other potential problems, but not ADA)

On 1/5/2019 at 9:15 AM, cblack20 said:

The agency is provided an appropriation by congress and the funds needed would not exceed it.

"The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal employees from:

making or authorizing an expenditure from, or creating or authorizing an obligation under, any appropriation or fund in excess of the amount available in the appropriation or fund unless authorized by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(A).

involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose, unless otherwise allowed by law. 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(B).

accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S.C. § 1342.

making obligations or expenditures in excess of an apportionment or reapportionment, or in excess of the amount permitted by agency regulations. 31 U.S.C. § 1517(a)."


https://www.gao.gov/mobile/legal/appropriations-law-decisions/resources/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cblack20 said:

Reviewer who is investigating the matter

Othe than you, no one here knows the facts, and no one here has read the contract and the modification.  Hopefully, the modification itself explains the authority for the modification (block 13 on the SF-30).  If you disagree with whatever is cited there, I suppose that is your starting point for your investigation.  

Based only on what I can read in this chain, I agree with Jamaal that you probably don't have an ADA issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the appropriation was available at the time the mod was executed there was no ADA violation.  If the appropriation was not available at the time of the modification, there was a violation.  From what has been written, it is not clear what the specific facts are.  Further, as Jamaal has pointed out, there could be other violations here depending on what the facts are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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