Because of a laspe in appropriations, Agencies are sending shutdown letters to contractors.

We are seeing the following verbiage:

"Appropriations provided under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Public Law 119-4) expire at 11:59 pm tonight. On September 19, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government through November 21. Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate due to Democrats’ insane policy demands, which include $1 trillion in new spending."

Ethical? Congruent with the FAR? Would you sign the letter if you were the CO?

A CO shouldn’t have to sign that. Since it covers the entire agency, except for critical work, a senior agency official should sign it. Each CO or contract specialist needs to decide which contractors receive it.

@Weno2 Was there a directive to use that wording in letters to contractors? If so, who signed the directive?

Without knowing any of the facts, I'm willing to bet that the language was drafted at a high level and passed down; people are using the language they were given. It's not a matter of ethics; it's a matter of following direction. At least, that's what I think (again, acknowledging I have zero facts).

We don't discuss politics here and I trust I'm not violating any Forum rules to add that so much of what transpires these days is performative rather than substantive. The quoted language strikes me as being performative.

22 hours ago, Weno2 said:

Because of a laspe in appropriations, Agencies are sending shutdown letters to contractors.

We are seeing the following verbiage:

"Appropriations provided under the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Public Law 119-4) expire at 11:59 pm tonight. On September 19, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean continuing resolution (CR) that would fund the government through November 21. Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate due to Democrats’ insane policy demands, which include $1 trillion in new spending."

Ethical? Congruent with the FAR? Would you sign the letter if you were the CO?

Of course, I wouldn’t sign a letter with the quoted wording. The details and blame are irrelevant to the necessary action that I would be directing.

Hmmmm....

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/M-25-35-Status-of-Agency-Operations.pdf

I wouldn't sign a letter with the suggested wording either. People need to think!

19 hours ago, C Culham said:

Hmmmm....

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/M-25-35-Status-of-Agency-Operations.pdf

I wouldn't sign a letter with the suggested wording either. People need to think!

I have been in government contracting for more than 50 years. In all that time I have never seen a memo such as the one at the end of the above link.

Just put the last sentence in white font.

This and similar language is floated around a few agencies. As far as I know, there is no directive to use it. It’s more of a suggestion if contractors want information. Read carefully and you’ll see it’s not telling contractors to do anything.

This brought to mind a story of a group of persecuted Christians somewhere in the Middle East. Radicals had lined them up at gunpoint and said they could live if they denied their faith. The question was asked of each person, with a gun pointed at their head.

All of the persons except the last one denied their faith. The last one refused, saying they were ready to die for their faith.

Then the terrorists shot everyone except the last one. The stated reason was because he was the only honest one.

Maybe this is a test to determine who is really competent by using their brains and good business judgement to reason, rather than those KO’s who would simply quote irrelevant background information in a letter to contractor(s), because they were told to.

I think it is important to note that this language is now on the homepage of USDA.gov and justice.gov. My stance it that this is NOT ethical and legally dubious under the Hatch Act. Not that anyone will do anything about it.