Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'appropriations'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post, Instructions for Writing Your Question
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • About The Regulations
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions


  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Government Contracts Blog
  • Government Contracts Insights
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • The Contractor's Perspective
  • Government Contracts Legal Forum


  • Community Calendar

Product Groups

There are no results to display.


  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 3 results

  1. I am an Army Contracting Officer in charge of the source selection for the production of an Army system. Since it always looks good for the program management folks to reach out to the other services (demonstrates you understand the “big picture”), this has occurred. In this case, the USMC wants to “be part of the procurement.” On the contracting side, it has always been our position to attempt to accommodate where it makes sense and when it does not jeopardize our core objective of meeting the Army mission. Now in the current situation, the participation of the USMC is considerable. Their desired portion/impact has the following characteristics: (1) They would be getting about 55% of the produced systems; (2) They would be providing about 55% of the funding; (3) About 20% of the specifications are not shared between the Army and USMC, so the USMC systems would require adjustment; & (4) A small but critical portion of the USMC systems would require a major configuration change. Some other important factors: The Army has based its decision to move ahead with this acquisition based on the system being COTS or an NDI. This is not a designated joint program and there is no formal agreement between the Army and USMC (no MOA exists). There is also a question as to whether the major system configuration change desired by the USMC falls under COTS or NDI. As an Army contracting officer, I want to do the right thing and best serve the Warfighter (which includes marines). We are very much encouraged to do this. Alternatively, this is not just adding on a few extra systems for the USMC; this is slightly over half of the procurement. I (we) have already sketched out numerous legal/ regulatory pitfalls, etc., but I do not want to influence anyone. What does everyone think about this? What are some ideas on how to best resolve?
  2. I am currently doing work with a federal agency client and a question has arisen as to whether or not an annual appropriation remains available in terms of time under a specific scenario. A firm-fixed-price contract was awarded for severable services for a period of one year and fully funded at time of award. During that time, there was a government-caused delay that required the performance to extend beyond the 12 months originally determined to be the PoP. As such, when work resumed, the total period of performance funded by the obligated appropriation was now 15 months for this severable service, which exceeds the 12 month limit imposed by 41 U.S.C. sect. 253l. Although the total amount of services rendered and charged to the government did not exceed 12 months - i.e., they still got 12 months of service at the FFP per month - the performance of said services lasted 15 months. Obviously the intent of the agency at award was to comply with the limits of 41 U.S.C. sect. 253l, but circumstances played out differently. Which is the appropriate course of action in terms of time availability given the cause of the extension: modify the contract to extend the PoP at no increase in price and use the original funding/appropriation, or modify the contract to extend the PoP and fund the remaining three months with current year money?
  3. My question relates to the usual last minute rush to get all of the current year's appropriations obligated before the end of the fiscal year. I'd like to know whether or not a prior year's annual appropriation can be obligated after the new fiscal year has begun if the need for the services arose and existed in the prior year, and the program office's request was delivered to Acquisition's personnel with enough time to have a contract awarded that year. Under this scenario, the contract does not get awarded prior to the end of the fiscal year due to factors beyond the control of the program office. In other words, a research division determines it has a bona fide need for a researcher on July 1st of FY 2012. A complete procurement request package is delivered to Acquisition personnel on July 20, FY 2012. Funds to be used for this requirement are from a FY 2012 annual appropriation. Due to workload or other factors, acquisition personnel don't get the contract awarded until November, FY 2013, time at which the annual appropriation is no longer available. Is it appropriate to obligate the FY 12 annual appropriation against this contract awarded in FY 2013 since the services that are being procured are a bona fide need of the previous year?
  • Create New...