Working at Risk

I don't know what a "Garrison" environment is, but you might find the Availability of Funding and More Funding Questions threads under the Contract Administration topic helpful.

No. And see FAR 32.704( c):

Government personnel encouraging a contractor to continue work in the absence of funds will incur a violation of Revised Statutes section 3679 (31 U.S.C. 1341) that may subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties.

"Being aware" might not be "encouraging," but, then again, it might, especially if the work is being done on a government facility. Be careful.

Assuming you work for the Government. Perhaps you can forward your concerns through your chain of command and maintain an memorandum for record for your files.

No. And see FAR 32.704( c):

"Being aware" might not be "encouraging," but, then again, it might, especially if the work is being done on a government facility. Be careful.

And it's not just "encouraging" that can get you in trouble. Knowingly allowing services to be performed without a contract might be construed to be accepting voluntary services, potentially in violation of 31 U.S.C. 1342 ("An officer or employee of the United States Government . . . may not accept voluntary services...")

I have always been curious about FAR 16.301-1 (for cost reimbursement contracts) which reads in part, "These contracts establish an estimate of total cost for the purpose of obligating funds and establishing a ceiling that the contractor may not exceed (except at its own risk) without the approval of the contracting officer." How should this be interpreted? Taken at face value it seems to indicate that the contractor may exceed the contract ceiling, but may not get reimbursed if they do. If that is what it means, does that mean it's OK for the contractor to work at risk as long as the Government doesn't know they are doing it?

Is therer some provision that allows a Contracting Officer to knowingly be aware that a Contractor is working at risk when no funds are received for health, welfare and morale, i.e., support for dining facility, building maintenance? Does anyone know of a provision that would allow this in a Garrison invironment?

Have you discussed services that are essential to the support of on-going programs, projects or operations? Does your contracting office have an "Essential Services" statement in the contract?

Have you discussed services that are essential to the support of on-going programs, projects or operations? Does your contracting office have an "Essential Services" statement in the contract?

Unknown, how it is described to me it is the Garrison, i.e. on a Army Intsallation in the Continental United States, environment. The contractor provided services such as post maintenence, dinning facilities, dental healthcare, on post housing maintenence, these types of services...

What the Contracting Officer has been doing is cohercing the contractor to work at risk until the installation FCO finds or gets the money to pay for it. Therefore, the contractor is working at risk, with the encouragement of the contracting staff. The contracting staff says "well we have always done it this way before", but the new chief wants the authority, for she has never heard of such a thing.

I think it is garbage on all levels..."We always done it this way" is not reason enough in my opinion, but that is the Army...

I agree - Just because it has always been done does not mean it has been done correctly.

The statement I have used at installation level is:

CLIN XXXX is exercised subject to the availability of funds under FAR 52.232-19. FY11 funds will be provided once available. In the event that FY11 funds are not immediately available after 1 Oct 11 - In the absence of a Fiscal year 11 Continuing Resoution Authoirty (CRA) or Annual Appropriation (AP), it is imperative that this office exercise judgment to determine which contract requirements are essential to the support of on-going programs, projects or operations. It is determined that the services your company provides under this contract are essential. Based upon this determination, you shall continue to perform, under the contract and all terms and conditions have full force and effect. When a CRA or AP is enacted or approved, your contract will be modified to obligate the funds made available.

I agree - Just because it has always been done does not mean it has been done correctly.

The statement I have used at installation level is:

CLIN XXXX is exercised subject to the availability of funds under FAR 52.232-19. FY11 funds will be provided once available. In the event that FY11 funds are not immediately available after 1 Oct 11 - In the absence of a Fiscal year 11 Continuing Resoution Authoirty (CRA) or Annual Appropriation (AP), it is imperative that this office exercise judgment to determine which contract requirements are essential to the support of on-going programs, projects or operations. It is determined that the services your company provides under this contract are essential. Based upon this determination, you shall continue to perform, under the contract and all terms and conditions have full force and effect. When a CRA or AP is enacted or approved, your contract will be modified to obligate the funds made available.

So, if there were no appropriation in place on 1 October 2011, the contractor would still have to work and the Government would still have to pay, correct? Wouldn't this be the creation of an obligation in advance of an appropriation--an Anti-Deficiency Act violation? The fact that you don't record the obligation until after the appropriation is enacted is irrelevant--what matters is when the obligation is created.

So, if there were no appropriation in place on 1 October 2011, the contractor would still have to work and the Government would still have to pay, correct? Wouldn't this be the creation of an obligation in advance of an appropriation--an Anti-Deficiency Act violation? The fact that you don't record the obligation until after the appropriation is enacted is irrelevant--what matters is when the obligation is created.

That is the issue Don, I cannot get past the FAR 32.704©, not to mention accepting voluntary services, potentially in violation of 31 U.S.C. 1342. Therefore, we were wanting to see what authority they are using for this action.

So, if there were no appropriation in place on 1 October 2011, the contractor would still have to work and the Government would still have to pay, correct? Wouldn't this be the creation of an obligation in advance of an appropriation--an Anti-Deficiency Act violation? The fact that you don't record the obligation until after the appropriation is enacted is irrelevant--what matters is when the obligation is created.

Don,

If it comes down to obeying the ADA or feeding troops, which path would you take? Essentially, following the ADA in a dining facility situation where the funding was not made available means the troops don't eat or are forced to survive on MRE's. Yes, the law says one thing, but is the law so ironclad that it means we must figuratively shoot ourselves in the leg?

This case does not seem to be that stark, and I bet the garrison has the funding available and is simply withholding it for some reason. I am working on some contracts that are in that situation right now. I have managed to get the funding nevertheless, incrementally, as I have told them I have no problem issuing a stop work notice if they fail to provide the funding in time. My situation is for training, so it is less critical in my opinion than funding for a dining facility. I might not threaten a stop work notice so easily in that situation.

So does FAR 32.704( c) apply in the following circumstance?

IDIQ Contract with FFP Orders.

Total Funded IDIQ Contract is $1M; 10 Orders are issued to the Contractor at 100k each. The Orders are to install 10 widgets (each widget costs 10k) in 10 different locations throughout the US. The widgets are installed at the 10 locations by one site at a time.

The installation team gets to the first site and it's determined by the COTR that additional 2 widgets will be required to complete that site. The additional widgets/labor will be 20k more for the one site.

The COTR directs the installation team to install the additional widgets and an Order modification will follow later.

Until the modification is done, the Contractor performs the service at Risk by the direction of COTR. If the waits for the modification Contractor doesn't perform the additional requirement right away, it would affect the schedule of all 10 sites.

I've been in this situation countless times as the Contractor and have made the decision to install the widgets at risk as a business decision. I usually get paid, but sometimes I don't?

Question: Can the COTR direct this as his authority is delegated by the CO? If I didn?t get paid, did I perform voluntary services?

Although at the time of the first installation there's plenty of funding to cover the additional 20k, but once the Contractor completes the other 9 sites, the funding will be fully exhausted.

FAR Fetched,

That's something different. The COTR directed you to do work that he/she didn't have the authority to do (assuming he/she didn't). You are responsible for verifying individuals have the proper authority before doing anything out of scope. So you are partially to blame for doing out of scope work without authorization.

You don't get paid unless an agency official ratifies the unauthorized commitment.

FAR Fetched,

That's something different. The COTR directed you to do work that he/she didn't have the authority to do (assuming he/she didn't). You are responsible for verifying individuals have the proper authority before doing anything out of scope. So you are partially to blame for doing out of scope work without authorization.

You don't get paid unless an agency official ratifies the unauthorized commitment.

You are correct, but 18+ years in the business tells me that telling the COTR what he can and can't do isn't a good idea. Like I said, I make a business decision which usually includes many other factors (e.g. I'm in the middle of another proposal w/same GCustomer and don't want to piss them off). A government employee would never hold a grudge if I called them out on their authority, right? right...

FAR - I would just add that the COTR authority is a matter of record. He/she may in fact have the authority but usually not but calling them out is very appropriate and should be done. Recent changes to the whole of FAR 1.6 gives even more support to doing so.

While the question regarding orders on a IDIQ might be a little off track of this thread, challenging the status quo is not. Your 18+ years of doing business is your choice but substantiating authority should not be avoided, it is your right under the contract.

FAR - I would just add that the COTR authority is a matter of record. He/she may in fact have the authority but usually not but calling them out is very appropriate and should be done. Recent changes to the whole of FAR 1.6 gives even more support to doing so.

While the question regarding orders on a IDIQ might be a little off track of this thread, challenging the status quo is not. Your 18+ years of doing business is your choice but substantiating authority should not be avoided, it is your right under the contract.

True, thanks

I think the problem is years ago I put proposals in to a CO, that were reviewed by COs and managed by COs with the help of CORs. Now, I turn proposal in to a Contract Specialist (who is usually contract company employee) who has zero authority and basically manages emails and phone calls. They usually defer my questions to the COR who then makes the decision and I finally get a modification with a CO?s name whom I've never heard of (usually months later).

It seems the agencies (at least in the DC Beltway) have less CO s and more 'contract specialists' then ever.

I think the problem is years ago I put proposals in to a CO, that were reviewed by COs and managed by COs with the help of CORs. Now, I turn proposal in to a Contract Specialist (who is usually contract company employee) who has zero authority and basically manages emails and phone calls. They usually defer my questions to the COR who then makes the decision and I finally get a modification with a CO?s name whom I've never heard of (usually months later).

It seems the agencies (at least in the DC Beltway) have less CO s and more 'contract specialists' then ever.

The reasons these problems are happening is because the system allows it. I have been a contractor, a COR, and now a contract specialist with desires to be a CO. Having said that, when the COR or any Government employee other than the CO directs a contractor to do anything out of scope the contractor should contact their contracts administrator to make contact with the CO, and at least get a email regarding the added work. To often as a COR I have seen my collegues intimidate contractors into free services and work. If played right the COR will get hammered by the CO and get their letter revoked. Unfortunately, there are too few CO's with enoughleadership to pull the trigger and do ratifications. When the COR misbehavoir starts cutting into their pocket it will stop.

But as long as there are contractors out there willing to do the work without question it will continue...

Don,

If it comes down to obeying the ADA or feeding troops, which path would you take? Essentially, following the ADA in a dining facility situation where the funding was not made available means the troops don't eat or are forced to survive on MRE's. Yes, the law says one thing, but is the law so ironclad that it means we must figuratively shoot ourselves in the leg?

That's not a decision for a CO to make, simply because a CO doesn't have the authority to violate the ADA. A CO's actions are limited by FAR 1.602-1(, which states:

No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.

A CO acting outside the scope of their authority can be held personally liable for their actions. A CO has no more authority than the garrison janitors to violate the ADA. If there's no funding in place, that's not the CO's fault. The problem of the hungry troops should be laid at the feet of those with the authority to do something about it. A CO who thinks that it's his or her call to knowingly violate the ADA is beyond stupid.

That's not a decision for a CO to make, simply because a CO doesn't have the authority to violate the ADA. A CO's actions are limited by FAR 1.602-1(, which states:

A CO acting outside the scope of their authority can be held personally liable for their actions. A CO has no more authority than the garrison janitors to violate the ADA. If there's no funding in place, that's not the CO's fault. The problem of the hungry troops should be laid at the feet of those with the authority to do something about it. A CO who thinks that it's his or her call to knowingly violate the ADA is beyond stupid.

Yes. COs and other people shouldn't just sit back and either do nothing or do foolish things like what's been mentioned. If there's no money and troops won't be fed as a result, it's up to the CO and their management to alert the proper people about the situation so that things can be straightened out. I'm sure whoever is controlling the money isn't aware of the repercussions.

That's not a decision for a CO to make, simply because a CO doesn't have the authority to violate the ADA. A CO's actions are limited by FAR 1.602-1(, which states:

A CO acting outside the scope of their authority can be held personally liable for their actions. A CO has no more authority than the garrison janitors to violate the ADA. If there's no funding in place, that's not the CO's fault. The problem of the hungry troops should be laid at the feet of those with the authority to do something about it. A CO who thinks that it's his or her call to knowingly violate the ADA is beyond stupid.

I wonder where 41 U.S.C., 11 fits in this scenario.

Don,

If it comes down to obeying the ADA or feeding troops, which path would you take? Essentially, following the ADA in a dining facility situation where the funding was not made available means the troops don't eat or are forced to survive on MRE's. Yes, the law says one thing, but is the law so ironclad that it means we must figuratively shoot ourselves in the leg?

I'll tell you what path I would take. I would obey the law, and I wouldn't apologize for it. If the commanders of those troops let it come to that, they are the ones who should answer for it. It's up to commanders to feed their troops, not some 1102 who thinks he or she ought to break the law in order to play hero. If you want to be a hero, see if you can get into Seal Team 6. If I were a chief of a contracting office and a CO took it upon himself or herself to deliberately violate the ADA, I would hang his or her ass out in the hot sun out to dry.

In any case, that's a totally BS scenario and dwgerard ought to be ashamed of himself for coming up with it.

I think the problem is years ago I put proposals in to a CO, that were reviewed by COs and managed by COs with the help of CORs. Now, I turn proposal in to a Contract Specialist (who is usually contract company employee) who has zero authority and basically manages emails and phone calls. They usually defer my questions to the COR who then makes the decision and I finally get a modification with a CO?s name whom I've never heard of (usually months later).

It seems the agencies (at least in the DC Beltway) have less CO s and more 'contract specialists' then ever.

Not true. When I entered contracting there were as many as five contract specialists (CSs) to every CO. COs were supervisors who oversaw the work of CSs, who did all the grunt work, including receiving and processing bids and proposals. COs reviewed CS work and signed contracts. They didn't handle contracts of their own. IGs would write up offices that handed out too many warrants. That has gradually changed in some organizations, which think that every CS should be a CO.

That's not a decision for a CO to make, simply because a CO doesn't have the authority to violate the ADA. A CO's actions are limited by FAR 1.602-1(, which states:

A CO acting outside the scope of their authority can be held personally liable for their actions. A CO has no more authority than the garrison janitors to violate the ADA. If there's no funding in place, that's not the CO's fault. The problem of the hungry troops should be laid at the feet of those with the authority to do something about it. A CO who thinks that it's his or her call to knowingly violate the ADA is beyond stupid.

I understand what you are saying, and agree with the premise that those in charge are responsible for providing the funding. The problem is that does not answer the question about what to do if there is no funding available for those in authority to provide. If there is no funding, do we simply turn off the dining facility? I agree that it is not the contracting officers decision, but what mechanism do we have to ensure that the troops are fed? Do we turn them loose to forage in nearby areas? I would say we start selling property to obtain the funds for feeding the troops, but that is also illegal.

What do we do? If those who are responsible for the creation of the ADA law do not follow the law themselves and do not live up to their responsibilities, are we still bound to the restrictions that they themselves fail to adhere to?

I realize this is a very unlikely hypothetical question, and the OP does not rise to that level. I do believe we need to know the answer to this question though, because it may eventually happen if our political leaders continue to play the games they seem to enjoy so much. Right now the only solution I have seen is the clause that LEO posted, but you have said that clause is also inappropriate.

Edit: I believe I found the answer to my own question- 50.101-1 Authority.

(a) Pub. L. 85-804 empowers the President to authorize agencies exercising functions in connection with the national defense to enter into, amend, and modify contracts, without regard to other provisions of law related to making, performing, amending, or modifying contracts, whenever the President considers that such action would facilitate the national defense.

( E.O. 10789 authorizes the heads of the following agencies to exercise the authority conferred by Pub. L. 85-804 and to delegate it to other officials within the agency: the Government Printing Office; the Department of Homeland Security; the Tennessee Valley Authority; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the General Services Administration; the Defense, Army, Navy, Air Force, Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Transportation Departments; the Department of Energy for functions transferred to that Department from other authorized agencies; and any other agency that may be authorized by the President.

"without regard to other provisions of law" = a provision allowing contracting without adhering to the ADA and other laws and regulations such as appropriation law.

I'll tell you what path I would take. I would obey the law, and I wouldn't apologize for it. If the commanders of those troops let it come to that, they are the ones who should answer for it. It's up to commanders to feed their troops, not some 1102 who thinks he or she ought to break the law in order to play hero. If you want to be a hero, see if you can get into Seal Team 6. If I were a chief of a contracting office and a CO took it upon himself or herself to deliberately violate the ADA, I would hang his or her ass out in the hot sun out to dry.

In any case, that's a totally BS scenario and dwgerard ought to be ashamed of himself for coming up with it.

BS? If it were completely impossible, then why did they add 50.101-1 to the FAR? I agree it is unlikely, perhaps in the extreme, but not impossible. Yes, we could stop all the contractors for working, but we still would need the food to be delivered, and in that unlikely probability, we would need a mechanism to obtain the supplies without having the funding available to pay for it. It has only been a bit over a hundred years since we were in that situation in the Civil War. In my opinion it is more unreasonable for a person to believe those extremes cannot happen again than it would be to me to believe they could.

BS? If it were completely impossible, then why did they add 50.101-1 to the FAR? I agree it is unlikely, perhaps in the extreme, but not impossible. Yes, we could stop all the contractors for working, but we still would need the food to be delivered, and in that unlikely probability, we would need a mechanism to obtain the supplies without having the funding available to pay for it. It has only been a bit over a hundred years since we were in that situation in the Civil War. In my opinion it is more unreasonable for a person to believe those extremes cannot happen again than it would be to me to believe they could.

If it comes to that, you will receive a properly executed order, with proper delegations. It won't originate at the Garrison level.

dwgerald,

There are two situations where money isn't available - Congress hasn't appropriated it or they have and the money hasn't worked its way down to your contract. You mentioned the later in your comment of

This case does not seem to be that stark, and I bet the garrison has the funding available and is simply withholding it for some reason. I am working on some contracts that are in that situation right now

Your job as the CO is to alert your management when it looks like money is running out. Let them know the repercussions - troops won't get fed until that happen. You will get their attention. If you keep trying to fix things improperly, you not only will get yourself in trouble with such things as an ADA violation, you'll bring lots of criticism and attention to your agency. Congress, GAO, IG and others will look at what happened and why. Your senior management will want to find who was responsible and the fingers point at you.

The right action is to notify management and let them make things right - not you breaking the rules. FAR 50-101 isn't for fixing problems due to administratively slack procedures in funding rountine contract actions.

"without regard to other provisions of law" = a provision allowing contracting without adhering to the ADA and other laws and regulations such as appropriation law.

dw:

You are wrong. You need to be more careful with your FAR research. FAR 50.101-1, which implements Pub. L. 85-804, does not authorize the president to enter into contracts without funds. See FAR 50.102-3, "Limitations on exercise of authority," paragraph ((3):

( No contract, amendment, or modification shall be made under Pub. L. 85-804?s authority?

(3) Except within the limits of the amounts appropriated and the statutory contract authorization... .

dwgerald,

There are two situations where money isn't available - Congress hasn't appropriated it or they have and the money hasn't worked its way down to your contract. You mentioned the later in your comment of

Your job as the CO is to alert your management when it looks like money is running out. Let them know the repercussions - troops won't get fed until that happen. You will get their attention. If you keep trying to fix things improperly, you not only will get yourself in trouble with such things as an ADA violation, you'll bring lots of criticism and attention to your agency. Congress, GAO, IG and others will look at what happened and why. Your senior management will want to find who was responsible and the fingers point at you.

The right action is to notify management and let them make things right - not you breaking the rules. FAR 50-101 isn't for fixing problems due to administratively slack procedures in funding rountine contract actions.

I complete agree with what you say and I have done exactly this in my current job a number of times over the last year. In my case, I have actually prepared the stop work notice and sent a preliminary copy to the funding agency which prompted them to send the funding within 2 hours in a few cases and by the next day in all the rest.

The problem will come when we have a function that cannot be stopped, such as sanitary services, non-optional provisioning and the like. If the garrison or perhaps even the agency itself does not have the funding to pay for those supplies or services, what mechanism do we have to continue those services or to obtain those required supplies? When I say we I mean everyone, not just contracting.

The crux of the question is not when the funding is available and the funding agency is simply stingy or unwilling to fund the activity. The problem I am concerned about is when Congress has not appropriated the funding or has not appropriated enough to cover all of the requirements that includes a non-optional supply or service. In that case there is no funding available to the agency.

In essence, what do we do when the "do more with less" is impossible, and we are faced with a day in August of 20XX when the account reaches zero and we still have 100,000 troops to feed? Is there a way to deal with that other than to demand funding from Congress or another agency? Is there a way legally that the supplies or services could be obtained with a promissory note of some sort and not actuall funding?

dw:

You are wrong. You need to be more careful with your FAR research. FAR 50.101-1, which implements Pub. L. 85-804, does not authorize the president to enter into contracts without funds. See FAR 50.102-3, "Limitations on exercise of authority," paragraph ((3):

Thanks for the correction Vern, but that leaves the original question unanswered; what mechanism do we or anyone else in the acquisition system have to obtain non-optional supplies or services in the event that funding is not available to the ordering agency? Do we just send out a foraging party, confiscate private supplies or do we release the troops and tell them they are on their own?

I realize this is not a likely scenario, but it is possible. It is happening in some countries today, and has happened in our past. It CAN happen again, so I think it wise for us to know if there is a means of obtaining the required supplies or services without descending into anarchy. Perhaps there is no answer to that question and anarchy will be the result. I hope not, because anarchy is much more difficult to recover from than would be a temporary and defined relaxation of the appropriation laws.

Thanks for the correction Vern, but that leaves the original question unanswered; what mechanism do we or anyone else in the acquisition system have to obtain non-optional supplies or services in the event that funding is not available to the ordering agency? Do we just send out a foraging party, confiscate private supplies or do we release the troops and tell them they are on their own?

You have no mechanism, dammit! No funds, no contracts. Anarchy is when people refuse to obey the law.

We have a constitution. Government employees are sworn to support and defend it. Remember your oath:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Did you not mean it? Under the Constitution of the United States, only Congress can appropriate funds. Under the laws enacted by Congress, COs can buy things only when they have money. What is it about that that you do not understand and cannot accept?

COs make and administer contracts. What kind of "contract" would it be to sign a document in order to entice a firm to provide supplies or services when you have no power to do so and no money to pay?

COs do not feed troops. Troop commanders feed troops. COs help with that by awarding contracts with appropriated funds. No funds, no contracts. Period. End of story. Game over. Send out the foraging parties.

That's not a decision for a CO to make, simply because a CO doesn't have the authority to violate the ADA. A CO's actions are limited by FAR 1.602-1(, which states:

A CO acting outside the scope of their authority can be held personally liable for their actions. A CO has no more authority than the garrison janitors to violate the ADA. If there's no funding in place, that's not the CO's fault. The problem of the hungry troops should be laid at the feet of those with the authority to do something about it. A CO who thinks that it's his or her call to knowingly violate the ADA is beyond stupid.

I agree with Don. And, the troops will not starve to death. The Garrison commander will be forced to explain his ineptitude in securing the proper funding and for putting the CO in the position in the first place. These problems persist, because CO's are stepping around the rules to accomplish the mission. Well mission accomplishment is not part of the oath, obeying the law is. There are far more people in prison, or who have forfieted their carreers because the held mission accomplishment above the law, nothin is above the law.... not even the mission, nor the officer's OER!

Moreover, when it comedown to it, these people will leave the CO out in the cold so fast it will make your head spin...

I was personally involved in a case in which three government employees were financially ruined because they broke the law in order to get an approved project done with end of fiscal year funds. They also talked a contractor into going along with them. The contractor was suspended and eventually went bankrupt. The project was approved and funded, but they did some lying in order to get the work done under the cover of a contract that was for other work. Their families were under a terrific strain for a number of years. I was hired to explain to a U.S. attorney that they were stupid, but not criminally-minded. He did not believe me. The U.S. attorney eventually decided not to charge the men, but the investigation required that all parties hire expensive attorneys to represent and defend them.

Support the mission, but don't break the law to do it.

I was personally involved in a case in which three government employees were financially ruined because they broke the law in order to get an approved project done with end of fiscal year funds. They also talked a contractor into going along with them. The contractor was suspended and eventually went bankrupt. The project was approved and funded, but they did some lying in order to get the work done under the cover of a contract that was for other work. Their families were under a terrific strain for a number of years. I was hired to explain to a U.S. attorney that they were stupid, but not criminally-minded. He did not believe me. The U.S. attorney eventually decided not to charge the men, but the investigation required that all parties hire expensive attorneys to represent and defend them.

Support the mission, but don't break the law to do it.

Thank you for sharing Vern...I apreciate the support.

Thank you for sharing Vern...I apreciate the support.

In case you don't know - if the government decides to pursue criminal charges against a government employee, it will not provide legal representation for the employee, even if they were acting within the scope of their employment. And one doesn't even have to have knowingly or willingly violate the law.

I am aware of 2 high level civilian employees who experienced this, were convicted of felony violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), fined and either put on probation or spent time in prison (I don't recall the specific consequences).