Is competition required for a contract to hire a celebrity for a PSA?

I wouldn't think of it as a contract -- sounds like a simple agreement to me.  The celebrity's people will give you the text for your agency to review.

Assuming that you are with a civilian agency. If DoD, CICA doesn’t apply. But FAR doesn’t apply for either DoD or civilian agencies for a no cost contract.

If the “value” of a no cost contract is less than $25,000, CICA wouldn’t be applicable to a civilian agency would it? Who would protest your agreement? 

See, for example: https://www.gao.gov/assets/2020-01/nocostcontracts.pdf

https://acqnotes.com/acqnote/careerfields/competition-contracting-act-cica

Ask your attorney…

How are you producing the PSA? Government facilities and production? By Contract?  Assuming here that the celebrity isn’t involved in that aspect. Edit: I was thinking that a contracted production could provide the celebrity’s services. The celebrity gets free PR exposure in return for making the announcement, right?

govt2310 said:

The celebrity is willing to do this job for free.

Why do you need a contract? Do you plan to terminate the celebrity for default if you don't like their performance? Write an agreement to the effect that the celebrity will do it as a public service at no charge.

Perhaps this activity is related to another recent post:

The problem is that a no-cost contract is still a contract—an agreement that the courts will enforce. See ThinkGlobal, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce, CBCA 4410, 16-1 BCA P 36489, Sept. 9, 2016:

Quote

Although the Government will not pay for services rendered under no-cost contracts, that does not mean that the Government is similarly immune from paying damages for breaching the terms of a no-cost contract....

See the commentary by Prof. Ralph C. Nash, Jr., in  "No Cost Contracts: Is The Government Liable For Breach Damages," The Nash & Cibinic Report, Nov. 2016.

Why bother with a contract? Why not just write an informal agreement that the actor will perform the service at no cost to the government. Such an agreement is necessary in order to get around 31 USC § 1342.

If all you know is contracts, every agreement looks like a contract.

I see no reason for a contracting office to be involved in this matter.

The FAR 5.203 $25,000 threshold only applies if solicitation involves appropriated funds.  Ergo, the FAR does not apply to no cost contracts.  So the $25,000 rule is moot here. 

The agency will use its own studio/equipment to make the PSA.  The celebrity just has to show up.

I don't think this can be just an "agreement."  I think this has to be a no cost contract.  If the value is below a certain amount, then CICA wouldn't apply. 

31 USC 6303 requires an agency to use a procurement contract if the principle purpose is for the direct benefit or use of the USG.

govt2310 said:

I think this has to be a no cost contract.

Okay.

Your interlocutors here disagree, but you are in the driver's seat.  Since you insist that it has to be a no-cost contract and that CICA must be invoked, and you feel a need for a sole-source justification for one of the authorized reasons in FAR Part 6, I wonder which justification you will use?  Clearly, your only choice is FAR 6.302-7, Public Interest, right?  Remember that a Public Interest justification requires approval by your agency head (non-delegable) and a report to the Congress.  Please let us know how this all turns out.

I agree with Vern:  "If all you know is contracts, every agreement looks like a contract.  I see no reason for a contracting office to be involved in this matter."

govt2310 said:

An agency needs to do a Public Service Announcement (PSA) commercial on TV.  The agency wants to hire a specific celebrity to appear in the PSA.  The celebrity is willing to do this job for free.  I am thinking that this would be a no-cost contract (NCC).  However, CICA applies to NCCs.  So the agency  has to compete the contract, unless the agency executes a sole-source justification for one of the authorized reasons in FAR Part 6.  If none of those authorized reasons apply, then the agency must compete the contract.  Thoughts?  Is there a statute that I don't know about that allows agencies to cherry-pick celebrities to do PSAs without competing the solicitation and without doing a sole-source justification?

Hire versus contract (my emphasis)?   Made me think of experiences of the past.  You may want to take a look at GAO Redbook Chapter 3, Availability of Appropriations: Purpose and get to the areas that discuss publicity and propaganda and publicity experts.   I think that there is more to the puzzle than meets the eye due to the absence of significant details that would allow for a reasonable response.

I checked the GAO Red Book and read the section on Propaganda and Publicity Experts.  It didn't answer my question, but it did give me a general background overview.  Hmm.

govt2310 said:

I checked the GAO Red Book and read the section on Propaganda and Publicity Experts.  It didn't answer my question, but it did give me a general background overview.  Hmm.

It might as I wonder if "the agency" has worked through the litmus test of the PSA effort with regard to possible violations of using appropriated funds for publicity and propaganda before figuring out the who and how to obtain them for the actual PSA.  Sometimes ideas are hatched and folks have not done the upfront very well.   If I were the CO I might be asking questions of the program people and even legal counsel.   

It is hazy but the experience related to this was how should I say interesting ( I added the emphasis)....“Instead, what Congress intended to prohibit with section 3107 is paying an individual ‘to extol or to advertise’ the agency, an activity quite different from disseminating information to the citizenry about the agency, its policies, practices, and products.” B-302992, Sept. 10, 2004

C Culham said:

Sometimes ideas are hatched and folks have not done the upfront very well.

An example of this is insisting on using a procurement contract for a celebrity's appearance in a PSA when said celebrity is willing to appear for free.

govt2310 said:

I think this has to be a no cost contract.

If it's to be a no cost contract, what consideration will the government offer the celebrity to make it binding?

Just now, ji20874 said:

An example of this is insisting on using a procurement contract for a celebrity's appearance in a PSA when said celebrity is willing to appear for free.

Yep no contract if all the other considerations are aligned

Gratuitous service?.....https://www.gao.gov/products/b-204326

But get it in writing or it might be a party foul.....https://www.gao.gov/products/b-324214

And for a detailed discussion read up on gratuitous services here - https://www.gao.gov/assets/2019-11/202819.pdf

Vern Edwards said:

If it's to be a no cost contract, what consideration will the government offer the celebrity to make it binding?

The celebrity gets exposure and FaceTime…

But as for binding, you are probably spot on.

gov2310,

We will all benefit if you come back later to let us know if your agency agrees with your opinion that it has to be a no-cost contract and that CICA must be invoked.

joel hoffman is correct, the celebrity gets the benefit of exposure, patriotic reputation, etc.  I will post here once I find out the answer.