Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Interests
    Cycling, outdoors, music
  1. Understood. I will take note of this and attempt to better craft my questions in the future. Sometimes, when one doesn't fully understand the issue, it can be difficult to phrase questions effectively.
  2. Mr. Edwards, Please understand that I honestly have the utmost respect for you, I have read many posts in the forums, and have taken one of your classes which I found to be one of the most beneficial I have had. Just disappointed that the disparaging remarks (from my POV) came from you in particular considering your reputation and level of expertise. As I said above, I thought this was a forum whereby those trying to gain knowledge could ask questions to those with more experience and not be made fun of or belittled for lack of experience, apparently I was mistaken. Was there never a time when you needed to ask a question about something? I'm just trying to learn. Regardless, the other responses were useful, so thank you.
  3. To Mr. Edwards, Thank you for the unnecessarily negative remarks, I wasn't expecting anything like that in a professional forum like this, so your condescending remarks were disappointing. I thought this was a forum for less experienced folks to ask questions and to learn from others, apparently for some it is an opportunity to belittle others. I can only read the various forms of guidance and attempt to interpret as best I can, and when I'm having difficulty, ask questions. My apologies if you find my attempt to ask a question and discuss (and my current level of understanding) to be beneath you or your level of patience. But thank you for the rest of your response before the insulting remarks, they were actually useful--I was unaware of the etymology of the terminology I was asking about. Since parts of my question are apparently not even worth discussing, I guess I'll end the discussion here. Thank you to those that provided useful, courteous, and professional responses, I did learn something from them.
  4. I think the question generally stayed the same, I only attempted to provide further clarification because many people incorrectly assume that when it comes to GPC, all standard purchases are below the micro, which is where your original references apply. I further clarified because I think I understand how to handle purchases below the micro, it is the standard GPC purchase above $3k but below $25k that I find difficult. The mention of CORs came up due to my discussion of the definition of Contracting Officer and the language the definition uses--there is a sentence that would seem to apply to many roles, and I made the comment that I did not believe the sentence applied to COR due to the term being defined separately below in the definitions section. I was not aware of the way the definitions have been modified over the years. As for 'best-value determinations and other matters', those are discussed because those are specifically the type of matters that are mentioned in the FAR as needing a KO. This is exactly my difficulty--the FAR and DFARS have language about what to do when the purchase exceeds the micro but not the SAT, and that language typically (though not always) only references the KO doing something. Take 13.003 ( b )--it gives you instruction on purchases over $3k but below $150K, however it only makes mention of the KO making a decision and does not use the language 'other individuals designated in accordance with 1.603-3'. OR take 13.104, again only mention of the KO having to promote competition, so what about the 'other individuals designated in accordance with 1.603-3', are they not required to promote competition to the maximum extent practicable? Again, this is one of my first posts, so my apologies if my question/issue is not clear or I'm having difficulty articulating my specific question. And thank you for the input.
  5. ji20874 and Jacques, thank you for your replies, I am in agreement and will attempt to explain this POV to our folks... If anyone else has any input, I'm still open. thanks again.
  6. Again I'd like to thank the responders for their input. To Mr. Edwards--I did not say that a COR was not a Contracting Officer, what I said was that I did not consider the [current] definition of Contracting Officer to include that of COR specifically because COR is defined separately below with it's own definition. I recognize fully that a COR acting within their delegated authority are, well, acting within their authority. So yes, I did READ the definitions section, in fact, I read through the ENTIRE definitions section so I could ensure I didn't miss another reference to KO in a definition---thank you Bill R....I will re-read it tomorrow. My issue with including COR within the KO definition is, why would the FAR council define a term and then again define it directly below? If the phrase 'certain authorized representative' refers to COR, then why is COR separately defined below? And, putting aside everything about whether COR is included in the definition of KO or not, wouldn't a GPC Cardholder be a Contracting Officer simply by virtue of their appointment since they have the authority to obligate the Government in a way very similar to a KO, albeit limited of course? I RECOGNIZE to be correct we would need to appoint GPC Cardholders using the SF1402. To both Mr. Edwards, Mr. Hoffman and anyone else that decides to provide input, let me make my question as clear as I can: For purposes of limiting competition or for making best value determinations (or for any other procedure that the FAR stipulates a KO must be involved), when making a GPC purchase that exceeds the micro but not $25K, who would document the file (no J&A is needed) to show that the limiting of competition was in the best interests of the GOV? And please don't say look to your Agency procedure.....our Agency just says to look to the FAR and DFARS and doesn't develop any real Agency procedures..... My basic argument here with my organization is that we are not utilizing FAR 13 to our advantage, we are making things potentially more difficult then necessary by requiring the Contracting Office and a KO to get involved with GPC purchases when these instances of limited competition occur, and FYI our organization makes between 10,000 and 15,000 GPC purchases in the European theatre per year alone, so even a small percentage going to a KO is A LOT. Again, thanks everyone, I'm still very new so every response is a learning opportunity.
  7. Thank you for your input. I recognize that ACO and TCO are included in the definition of Contracting Officer, however COR is defined separately below in the definitions so I would not consider the COR 'role' to be included in the definition of Contracting Officer. While the ACO and TCO seem to be some of the roles they refer to when making the statement 'certain authorized representative', could there be other 'roles' within contracting generally that meet that definition? And could one of those roles be a GPC Cardholder? Again, thanks.
  8. First off, thank you for your input. Yes I have read the two parts many times, I should have been more specific and provided a clearer picture of the situation. I am in an OCONUS environment so we utilize the DFARS 213.301 exception for overseas usage of the GPC up to $25K. It is these purchases above the micro up to the $25K that are confusing. With reference to FAR 1.603-3( b ), as for purchases at or below the micro purchase threshold, in our organization, if a best value determination is needed, the individual with the card that actually makes the obligation and holds pecuniary liability currently must request and justify the determination to the Contracting Office and a KO there writes up the determination, signs and provides to the Cardholder to document their purchase record (if they agree...). In my opinion, this seems incorrect. I'm fully aware of the requirement to appoint a KO using the SF1402, which appear as though they could also be used for a GPC Cardholder appointment. Currently our organization does NOT appoint using this form, which is why I mentioned this in my original question, so I understand that current appointments do not meet this requirement for KO appointment. When a cardholder makes a purchase, this seems to meet the definition of a contract from 2.101 and also appears to meet the definition given in 13.004. Reading back through 1.601, a GPC purchase must also be made IAW many of the same considerations as a Contracting Officer makes. Similar wording is used in FAR 13 for purposes of outlining use of SAP. So, when OCONUS and using a GPC to make a purchase over the micro but under $25k, assuming all requirements are met to properly make the purchase, who is the Contracting Officer? If a purchase over the micro is to be made and competition will be limited, who would document the file to explain/justify why limiting was beneficial for the GOV? And again, thank you.
  9. In the FAR the term Contracting Officer is defined as "a person with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. The term includes certain authorized representatives of the contracting officer acting within the limits of their authority as delegated by the contracting officer. “Administrative contracting officer (ACO)’’ refers to a contracting officer who is administering contracts. “Termination contracting officer (TCO)” refers to a contracting officer who is settling terminated contracts." The second sentence of the definition stumps me. Could the 'certain authorized representative' be a Government Purchase Card holder acting within their authority (assuming their appointment letter is on the SF1402)? In instances of limiting competition, typically the FAR makes mention of the Contracting Officer documenting the reasons for the limited competition. In the case of a GPC purchase, if competition is going to be limited for legitimate reasons, who is the Contracting Officer that would give approval? Thank you.
  10. I have searched the forums and blogs on WIFCON and generally searched the web with Google and cannot find anything that speaks specifically to our issue. The situation is as follows: DoD has facilities in England, many of which have been there for a very long time. In England there is a standard fee that all owners and users of a television must pay. Additionally, when using the TV, if the user decides to record content and potentially re-view the content later, there is an additional licensing fee. In the UK this fee is viewed as a tax by their Government. After speaking with our OGC and that of the Air Force, we feel that the SOFA does not allow us any option other than to pay the fee. If we refuse to pay the bill (even though no one obligated the GOV) then we cannot use the TVs in the facilities, let alone record content from them. The problem with the fee is that it is essentially automatic. At one point in the past the UK tax authorities began billing our organization for these television related fees. The bill comes at the beginning of the year each year, automatically because they know we have TVs and that we record content. The real issue here is that our organization is trying to pin the billing on someone as an Unauthorized Commitment which I do not believe is correct. My apologies if my question is unclear and for my rambling, I'm relatively new with limited experience in contracting and this is my first post to the Wifcon site. Thank you in advance for any clarification or guidance that anyone can provide.
  • Create New...