Increment 1217 Aug 2027COR / Government PropertyGood path

Commander-directed unauthorized installation

While walking past the Campbell Hall job site, Colonel Roy Campbell suggests that Peace Walker add a dedicated mini-split where his office is being built and tells the foreman to proceed before the wall closes. The contractor acts in good faith on what it believes is lawful Government direction and now invoices $32,000 for the extra work, although no Contracting Officer authorized the change.

Scenario descriptions

The situation, for each audience

Keep the trainer context out of trainee packets and read-aloud materials.

Trainee facing · Read aloud

Current situation

Colonel Roy Campbell happens to be walking past the Campbell Hall job site while Peace Walker Infrastructure Partners, LLC is framing the office that will become his. He suggests adding a dedicated cold-climate mini-split and tells the foreman to install it before the wall closes.

The foreman sees Campbell's colonel rank, knows that he commands the installation, and hears him direct a change in the space intended for his own office. Peace Walker says it acted in good faith on what it believed was lawful Government direction. It installs the unit and now submits a $32,000 invoice. The unit was not in the task-order drawings or specifications, no Contracting Officer in the 713th Contracting Squadron (713 CONS) authorized the work, and the completed system is operational and in Government use.

Determine what authority, if any, bound the Government; whether an unauthorized commitment occurred; whether it can be ratified; and what investigation, organizational record, legal review, price determination, funding support, and approval package are required.

Trainer only · Do not issue

Facilitator context

Use at Increment 12 only after the explicit [I] unauthorized-commitment briefing and after asbestos abatement has advanced enough for office-wall framing to resume. Present this as a separate job-site event. Do not begin by crediting the prior response and do not describe a request to, refusal by, or bypass of Raiden. Colonel Campbell is the Government individual whose statement and corrective-action facts belong in this branch's package.

After initial discussion, ask trainees to distinguish apparent authority from actual authority. Campbell's rank, command position, job-site presence, directive wording, and interest in the office can explain Peace Walker's claimed good-faith belief. Under RFO FAR 1.402-1, however, only an official with actual delegated authority may bind the Government, and only within that authority. The good-faith account remains relevant evidence; it does not itself create contracting authority.

Walk RFO FAR 1.405(a) and (c). Ratification requires all six criteria: Government acceptance or benefit; an authorized ratifying official; a purchase that would otherwise have been proper if made by an authorized Contracting Officer; a fair-and-reasonable-price determination; Contracting Officer recommendation with legal-counsel concurrence; and funds available then and now. The intended prompted record supports every criterion, but trainees must develop and articulate each one.

For process, use archived DAFFARS 5301.602-3 and MP5301.601(a)(i) only as non-regulatory strategic guidance retained under current DAF policy until superseded. The Contracting Officer investigates; the organization supplies the circumstances, corrective action, disciplinary action or explanation, Colonel Campbell's signed statement, and relevant records; and the Contracting Officer prepares the case summary, legal concurrence, contractor invoice and correspondence, recommendation, and approval package. The authorized ratifying official—not the investigating Contracting Officer by convenience—decides. Complete the package review within [IG].

Trainer clue bank

Regulatory signposts

10 sources

Direct trainees to a citation when they need a narrower clue. Have them apply the contract’s actual clauses, current thresholds, local policy, and the facts before treating any signpost as dispositive.

Trainer route check

Confirm the path before release

Use only if [I] trainees expressly stated the unauthorized-commitment and change-authority limits. Do not begin by crediting that earlier response or describing a Raiden refusal. This branch presents a separate commitment made independently by Colonel Campbell. Complete any ratification-package review within this event.

What led here

[I] Emergency COR replacement

Where it leads

Ratification disposition closes within [IG]Only after the complete RFO FAR 1.405(c) and DAF strategic-guidance package analysis supports ratification.

Facilitator note

Offer only the two ratification-process responses. Colonel Campbell's rank, command role, and directive language support the contractor's good-faith account, but only actual delegated authority can bind the Government. Cite RFO FAR 1.402-1 and 1.405, The Portland Mint v. United States, No. 2022-2154 (Fed. Cir. 2024), and—consistent with current DAF policy—the archived DAFFARS 5301.602-3 template and MP5301.601(a)(i) matrix as non-regulatory strategic guidance. At $32,000, that retained DAF matrix assigns the below-SAT ratification to the COCO without further delegation. The prompted IG-03 through IG-07 record supports all six RFO FAR criteria and the practical DAF package sequence. If trainees deny or leave the invoice unresolved without doing the ratification analysis, explain that Peace Walker may file in the Court of Federal Claims alleging an implied-in-fact contract and Government acceptance and benefit; the contractor would still have to establish actual authority rather than mere apparent authority. If trainees instead pay or execute an ordinary modification without ratification, record an audit and internal-control failure because the required findings and COCO approval remain absent.

Release 01

Give initially

2 records

These establish the decision without answering the factual questions trainees should identify.

IG-01

$32,000 Peace Walker extra-work invoice

Introduces the contractor's demand for payment and its contemporaneous account of the job-site direction.

Draft document availablePDF · 1 page · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

IG-02

Original design and scope extract

Confirms that Office 214 was served by the building's central air system and that no dedicated mini-split appeared in the awarded task-order drawings, equipment schedule, or scope.

Draft document availablePDF · 2 pages · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

Release 02 · Oral inject

Trainer addition

2 prompts

Give only after trainees have read and discussed the event. Use it to narrow attention without disclosing the answer.

After trainees discuss the initial record, ask: ‘What is the difference between apparent authority and actual authority?’

If needed, add: ‘Campbell wore a colonel's rank, commanded the installation, spoke at the job site, and directed the change. What authority might that appearance suggest to the contractor, and what authority would actually be required to bind the Government?’ Credit the contractor's asserted good faith as an investigative fact, but do not let it substitute for delegated contracting authority.

Release 03

Give only after trainee prompting

5 records

Use the prompt as a release gate; close-enough trainee questions should count when they seek the same underlying fact.

Prompt / triggerHandoutExercise purpose

PromptAsk who suggested, directed, understood, relied upon, or performed the work

HandoutIG-03
Participant statements and authorization chronology

Draft document availablePDF · 3 pages · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

PurposeIdentifies Colonel Campbell as the individual who made the unauthorized commitment and preserves the contractor's good-faith account without treating apparent authority as actual authority.

PromptAsk whether the Government received a benefit, whether the system is acceptable, whether $32,000 is fair and reasonable, or whether funds existed then and remain available

HandoutIG-04
Benefit, technical acceptance, price, and funds record

Draft document availablePDF · 2 pages · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

PurposeSupports Government benefit, technical acceptance, a fair-and-reasonable price determination, and availability of appropriate funds both when the commitment was made and at ratification.

PromptAsk whether the purchase would have been proper if made by a Contracting Officer or who may approve ratification

HandoutIG-05
Procurement-propriety and ratifying-authority record

Draft document availablePDF · 2 pages · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

PurposeConfirms that the in-scope work could have been properly purchased through a written change and that the archived DAF matrix retained as strategic guidance assigns this below-SAT ratification to the COCO without further delegation.

PromptAsk for the circumstances, Colonel Campbell's statement, relevant records, corrective actions, or disciplinary action or an explanation why none was taken

HandoutIG-06
Requiring-organization unauthorized-commitment report

Draft document availablePDF · 2 pages · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

PurposeProvides the organization-generated portion of the DAF ratification record.

PromptAsk for legal review, the Contracting Officer's recommendation, or the approval package route

HandoutIG-07
Legal concurrence and ratification routing record

Draft document availablePDF · 3 pages · Editable Word copy

View PDF Download PDF Download Word

PurposeSupports legal sufficiency and completes the Contracting Officer's case summary, invoice package, recommendation, and routing to the COCO as authorized ratifying official.

Facilitation lens

What a strong analysis should surface

Recognition - RFO FAR 1.405(a) defines an unauthorized commitment as an agreement that is not binding solely because the Government representative lacked authority. Colonel Campbell's job-site direction made the commitment in this branch. His rank and command position may create apparent authority, but RFO FAR 1.402-1 requires actual delegated contracting authority to bind the Government.
Apparent versus actual authority - Peace Walker's good-faith belief helps explain why it acted and belongs in the factual investigation. It does not convert command authority, rank, or a directive tone into a contracting warrant or written change authority, and it does not eliminate the need for ratification.
Immediate control - Stop any further extra-contractual work, protect safety and the installed system, preserve the invoice and communications, notify the Contracting Officer, and investigate before promising payment, removal, or a retroactive modification.
Ratifiability under RFO FAR 1.405(c) - Confirm all six criteria: the Government accepted supplies or services or otherwise received a benefit; the ratifying official has authority; the resulting contract would otherwise have been proper if made by an authorized Contracting Officer; the reviewing Contracting Officer determines the $32,000 price fair and reasonable; the Contracting Officer recommends payment and legal counsel concurs; and funds were available when the commitment occurred and remain available now.
DAF package development - The Contracting Officer investigates. The organization explains the circumstances, corrective actions, disciplinary actions or why none were taken, supplies Colonel Campbell's signed statement, and provides relevant records. The Contracting Officer prepares a case summary addressing all six RFO FAR criteria and includes the legal concurrence, contractor invoice and correspondence, organization report, recommendation, and approval routing in the ratification package.
Approval - The Contracting Officer investigates, determines price, prepares, and recommends. Because $32,000 is below the current simplified acquisition threshold, the archived DAF approval-authority matrix retained as strategic guidance assigns the decision to the chief of the contracting office (COCO), without further delegation. A bilateral modification alone does not ratify the commitment.
Intended exercise facts - The prompted record supports Government benefit, technical acceptability, funds then and now, a purchase that would have been proper if made by a Contracting Officer, a fair and reasonable $32,000 price, legal concurrence, and an official with sufficient ratification authority. Trainees should still articulate and document every element rather than assume ratification from benefit alone.

Trainer-controlled decision menu

Available response options

2 options

Offer options in plain language and accept equivalent trainee analysis. Do not reveal the assessment labels. Use each availability gate before accepting a contextual response, and use the trainer line to redirect a superfluous answer immediately.

How to run this node: Offer only these two dispositions. IG-01 and IG-02 establish the invoice and that the work was outside the awarded design. Release IG-03 through IG-07 only when trainees ask for the people, chronology, benefit, technical acceptance, price, funds, procurement propriety, approval authority, organization report, legal review, or routing evidence needed to carry out ratification.

IG1Weak

Handle the unauthorized commitment without completing every required ratification finding and approval—whether by denying or leaving the invoice unresolved, or by attempting ordinary payment or a retroactive modification.

Available when: Initially available
Trainer line: “Government benefit is only one RFO FAR 1.405(c) criterion, and apparent authority does not bind the United States. If the Government denies or leaves the supported invoice unresolved solely because no Contracting Officer authorized the work initially, Peace Walker files in the Court of Federal Claims alleging an implied-in-fact contract based on Campbell's direction and Government acceptance and use. The Government incurs litigation burden, while the contractor still must prove actual—not merely apparent—authority. If the team instead pays or signs an ordinary modification without the investigation, price determination, funds evidence, organization report, legal concurrence, Contracting Officer recommendation, and COCO approval, an audit finds that the unauthorized commitment was never validly ratified.”
Leads next: Record the defective disposition, litigation or audit exposure, internal-control finding, and unresolved lawful basis for payment; close [IG] without treating the invoice as ratified.

IG2Strong

Identify the unauthorized commitment and complete every RFO FAR criterion and DAF ratification step before any contract or payment action.

Available when: Strongest after trainees request and analyze IG-03 through IG-07
Trainer line: “The team controls further extra-contractual work; preserves the installed system and records; investigates who committed and relied on what; verifies Government acceptance or benefit, an otherwise proper purchase, a fair and reasonable $32,000 price, funds then and now, legal concurrence, and ratifying authority; obtains the requiring-organization report, Colonel Campbell's statement, and corrective and disciplinary-action record; prepares the Contracting Officer's case summary and recommendation; and routes the complete package to the COCO identified by the archived DAF matrix retained as strategic guidance. The COCO approves the supported ratification, after which the Contracting Officer documents the contract and payment action and Peace Walker is paid.”
Leads next: Close [IG] with a complete ratification file, approved contractual action, payment, and recorded corrective measures.