Hey friends,

Im an 1102 and have been for 12 years. I've been pawing through some of DOGE'S claims to determine the veracity of their claims for myself, and I came across a lot of BPAs that claim savings. Most of us who've been doing this a while know that BPAs are awarded for $0 and are funded with BPA calls, so there's almost no savings in cancelling one.

I have a friend who's a hardcore DOGE supporter, and he is convinced that BPAs are accounted for in appropriations by Congress and the savings is more substantial than I realize. I am nearly certain that he's wrong. As i have always understood it, appropriations establish budget authority which leads to an allotment, then an obligation and an outlay. BPAs are merely tools to expedite obligations, almost like a catalog, and the establishment of a BPA limit is done at the agency level outside of appropriations.

Am I missing something? Can you actually trace a Blanket Purchase Agreement to an appropriation, or is this guy simply speaking out of his derriere so convincingly that I'm gaslighting myself?

You are correct in principle.  The reality is BPAs are often abused from a financial perspective. Favorite tricks are obligating funds either directly for future “draw down” or issuance of a “bulk funding” order against the BPA to cover anticipated needs.  The term BPA is also improperly used by some to obligate large dollar amounts for recurring needs such as FedEx shipment use, training for commercial and educational sources, and landlord modifications  to commercially leased space.  These get recorded in financial systems which is wrong but usually not questioned.

On 2/23/2025 at 12:14 PM, jimpaulette2 said:

Am I missing something?

Did you and your friend use the tools available to you, and to the public for that matter, and take a look at FPDS or usaspending to help you decide if either or you are missing something?