Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'antideficiency act'.
Found 2 results
-
A firm fixed price proposal was negotiated at a value of $800K. Funding at the time was available in the amount of $500K. The contract was awarded at a value of $800K, pursuant to DFARS 252.232-7007, the intention was to incrementally fund the contract in the amount of $500K. At the time, the organization was experiencing issues with the contract writing system, which resulted in the CLINs being inadvertently fully funded, thus over-obligating the $500K funding document by $300K. Unknowingly, the KO signed the contract. Within the same day, the error was discovered A modification was done to reduce the obligation to the $500K available. Does this constitute an ADA violation? -
Our agency has a long-standing policy of allowing incremental funding across fiscal years. As an anecdote, we had this one requirement for chaplain services that began 1 Sep 16, ends 31 Aug 17, and the RA only wanted to provide 2 months of FY16 OMA funds, intending to fund the other 10 months with FY17. Am I crazy, or doesn’t this violate the ADA by obligating the government in advance of funding? As the KO, I pushed back, requesting full funding or a change to the base period to match available funding. The RA was not pleased, nor was our management. We’ve been going back and forth for months and still are, prompting the RA to provide the full funding to ensure award by 30 Sep 16. But the fight is still on; management won’t rescind this policy, stating that we have to help the RA with their budget difficulties. Agency regulation requires management to report even *suspected* cases of ADA violations to HQ, but they won’t. I’ve bounced this off of other KOs for a reality check; they all agree that it is an ADA violation. As fish don’t know they’re wet, do we not know we’re wrong? Our legal counsel cites FAR clause 52.232-18 as authority; we disagree. Who’s right?