Jump to content

Government Purchase Card Holder Authority


Iron Man

Recommended Posts

What authority does a Government Purchase Card Holder have with regard to signing an agreement for services under the micro-purchase threshold?

Obviously a card holder can make a straight-forward purchase of a service. But, what if the contractor wants the card holder to sign an agreement before providing the services? For example, the agreement primarily identifies the services to be provided; however, it also addresses other issues such as payment terms, modification of the agreement, liability. Some of the clauses are not objectionable, while others would need to be modified or removed. Assuming the contractor agrees to the Government?s proposed changes, may the agreement be signed by the card-holder, or may such an agreement only be signed by a contracting officer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

Their authority is the fact that they have been issued a purchase card.

Their use of the card is subject to not only the FAR but the agency/department regulation or policy that has been put into place for use of the card. If the regulation/policy is silent with regard to the specific instance I believe that signing of the agreement is appropriate based on these facts. The individual has been issued the card and therefore is authorized to use the card, FAR 13.201(d), and when purchasing with a purchase card the buyer sometimes signs a sales receipt that contains terms and conditions regarding such things as "return policy" which is no different that the situation you describe where terms and conditions are being proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their authority is the fact that they have been issued a purchase card.

Their use of the card is subject to not only the FAR but the agency/department regulation or policy that has been put into place for use of the card. If the regulation/policy is silent with regard to the specific instance I believe that signing of the agreement is appropriate based on these facts. The individual has been issued the card and therefore is authorized to use the card, FAR 13.201(d), and when purchasing with a purchase card the buyer sometimes signs a sales receipt that contains terms and conditions regarding such things as "return policy" which is no different that the situation you describe where terms and conditions are being proposed.

Carl,

I think you've come to an unsupported conclusion. As a general rule, contracting officers, and other officials authorized to obligate the government, are limited in their authority by the terms of their grant of authority. For example, some contracting officers are granted limited warrants -- limited to specified dollar limitations, or limited to only placing orders under FSS contracts, etc.

Therefore, one can't tell whether Iron Man's cardholder has authority to sign the particular agreement or not. Some card holders are warranted contracting officers with unlimited warrants; most are not. I think one would have to (1) know what authority had been granted to this particular cardholder, and (2) know what specfic terms are at issue, before answering the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would need to look at the authority provided to the card holder. Normally it's done by a letter or memo from the delegating/appointing officail for the cardholder.

Assuming that doesn't pose any restrictions, the cardholder should have that authority. However it's not a good idea for the cardholder to sign for several reasons. One is the cardholder likely doesn't have the expertise and experience of a CO to determin if signing the agreement is wise. Second, there could be some conditions that can't be waived or revised. Finally the cardholder could inadvertantly exceed their limitations such as agreeing to some liability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

Navy - Iron Man's post provides that the procurement is for "an agreement for services under the micro-purchase threshold". I stand by my conclusion in general and the added clarification I provided regarding agency policy. Reference FAR 1.603-3(B).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Navy - Iron Man's post provides that the procurement is for "an agreement for services under the micro-purchase threshold". I stand by my conclusion in general and the added clarification I provided regarding agency policy. Reference FAR 1.603-3(B).

Carl,

I maintain that one would have to know (1) what authority had been granted to this particular cardholder, and (2) what specific terms are at issue, before answering the question.

Some cardholders are limited to, for example, buying office supplies or ordering off GSA schedules. Without knowing what authority has been granted, I don't think you can properly conclude that the cardholder has authority to sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vern Edwards

I agree with Navy. The authority of a cardholder depends on the express terms of the appointment.

Moreover, Carl said:

If the regulation/policy is silent with regard to the specific instance I believe that signing of the agreement is appropriate based on these facts.

That's wrong. Silence about authority is not authority. An "agreement" might obligate the government in any number of ways. The assertion that that silence empowers a cardholder to sign an "agreement" is untenable absent some express official statement to that effect. A cardholder would be a fool to believe that. Nothing in statute or in FAR supports that assertion, including the "guiding principles."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest carl r culham

I find it hard to reach the same conclusions as Vern and Navy. To me if a card has been issued to an individual to make micro-purchases for services it seems a stretch to me that that individual cannot negotiate the agreement (terms and conditions) for providing those services. One specific example comes to mind- repair or maintenance of a vehicle where almost every repair garage has a standard statement of terms that the customer is required to sign when the vehicle is brought in for repair. I say the card holder can negotiate that statement by adding to the repair order a statement to the effect that "No repairs/maintenance beyond what is stated on this repair order without my specific approval". My conclusion is that if the individual has been granted micro-purchase authority evidenced by issuance of the card, and the card holder is purchasing a service at or below the micro-purchase threshold and there is no regulation/policy preventing the purchase of that service the individual can negotiate with the entity providing that service if that entity wants an agreement for that service. I simply disagree that micro-purchase authority must affirmatively state in the authority the right to negotiate an ?agreement? which I see as just the terms and conditions of the sale/purchase. As I noted in my posts take a look at many invoice/payment statements and there are all kinds of terms on many of them and the businesses use these statements in lieu of a simple credit machine sales slip and card holders are signing them all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I agree that the cardholder's authority rests with the delegation memo, many commercial agreements have an indemnification clause or other clauses that a cardholder may not fully understand. At our agency, if an agreement must be signed, even an agreement for a conference room, a warranted, trained CO signs the agreement. A few classes on using purchase cards does not make someone proficient in understanding agreements.

Although it was interesting reading everyone's comments on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have seen purchase card holder's with two different delegations here; one for "procurement authority" and one for "contract authority". I always wondered what the difference was...in both cases, they are not warranted CO's, just card holder's limited to micro-purchase threshold of 3k.

anyone know if there is a difference in authority? maybe the contract authority implies ability to negotiate and sign agreements?

-b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen purchase card holder's with two different delegations here; one for "procurement authority" and one for "contract authority". I always wondered what the difference was...in both cases, they are not warranted CO's, just card holder's limited to micro-purchase threshold of 3k.

anyone know if there is a difference in authority? maybe the contract authority implies ability to negotiate and sign agreements?

-b

I don't know the answer for certain because there's so much variation between agencies. My guess is "procurement authority" concerns ordering within the micro-purchase threshold and "contract authority" is for placing orders under agency IDIQ contracts. But who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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