Off-loading, the Abuse of Inter-agency Contracting to Avoid Competition and Oversight Requirements, Volume 4

Front Cover
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Selected pages

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 13 - The head of an agency or major organizational unit within an agency may place an order with a major organizational unit within the same agency or another agency for goods or services if — (1) amounts are available; (2) the head of the ordering agency or unit decides the order is in the best interest of the United States Government; (3) the agency or unit to fill the order is able to provide or get by contract the ordered goods or services; and (4) the head of the agency decides ordered goods or...
Page 15 - Government and grants or cooperative agreements to transfer money, property, services, or anything of value to recipients to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute.
Page 12 - ... CTIES Directorate generated to perform work for the Army's Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). The cost of Task Order 32/Subtask 16 was over $11.5 million. The total cost of the JRTC project, which included an additional operations and maintenance contract for $5.5 million, was over $17 million. The CTIES Directorate, using the contract offload process to add a task outside the scope of an expired Marine Corps Logistics Base contract, acquired a computer system that should have been obtained...
Page 20 - States unless it is supported by documentary evidence of — ( 1 ) a binding agreement in writing between the parties thereto, including Government agencies, in a manner and form and for a purpose authorized by law, executed before the expiration of the period of availability for obligation of the appropriation or fund concerned for specific goods to be delivered, real property to be purchased or leased, or work or services to be performed...
Page 12 - ... become apparent. The comparative ease with which the game protection fund is collected and the broad powers granted to the game commissioners or wardens in some States have been the subject of more or less severe criticism. Complaint has been made that receipts from hunting licenses have been expended for purposes other than that for which they were intended, and that in some cases deputies have been active in directions other than the protection of game. These criticisms show clearly the importance...
Page 14 - Record at 44-45. that should be acceptable, even though the other agency has no particular expertise in that area. Senator LEVIN. Let me interrupt you there. The answer is maybe on that. It depends on a number of things. One is, is it for the same item or items. We have had cases where contracts are put in place just for the purpose of accomplishing the first agency's goals, like that Marine contract, where the Marines had no purpose in that contract for computer services, other than to buy something...
Page 37 - ... rules of Competition in Contracting and year-end spending prohibitions. It is not all inadvertent. Would you agree with that? Mr. HINSHAW. I would agree with that. Yes, sir. Senator LEVIN. Would you agree with that, Mr. Layton? Mr. LAYTON. Yes, sir. Senator LEVIN. Mr. Vander Schaaf? Mr. VANDER SCHAAF. Oh, absolutely. Yes, sir. Senator LEVIN. Somehow or other, we have got to make people accountable for their actions.
Page 19 - The obligation and the subsequent disbursement of approved funds are the most significant measures of the success of our budget execution efforts. Next year's funding is very much dependent on the status of last year's budget execution. In other words, a good execution rate which meets or exceeds the Army's goals supports our request for full funding in future years.84 All of these year-end expenditures violated DOD policy; some of them may have violated the law as well.