CONTRACTING OFFICER WARRANT BOARD EXAM 2025
CURRENTLY TESTING FINAL EXAM AND PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED
VERIFIED ANSWERS /ALREADY GRADED A+
#$%^&
You are the PCO for a major competitive negotiated source selection. The RFP, which reflects
the user's requirements and is based on the user's budget, has a requirement for 220 cargo
loaders to be delivered at 55 per year over the next four years. One offeror proposes to deliver
all 220 loaders in the first year at a dramatically reduced price. Can you accept the offeror's
proposal? What factors should you consider in your decision? - (ANSWERS)You can accept the
offeror's proposal under certain circumstances. Firstly, what did the RFP say about alternate
proposals? Is this a situation where requirements are changed and the other offerors should be
allowed to propose on the basis of the changed requirements? You need to ask the user if he
wants all 220 in the first year and are the operating locations physically able to accommodate
their loaders in the first year. Finally, the offeror could be taken into discussions and asked to
conform to the RFP with there being the possibility of not being selected for award or
elimination from the competitive range if the proposal is not made compliant with the RFP.
You are the PCO on a new $2B aircraft development program. The program is in contract
negotiations for a Fixed Price Incentive (Firm Target) System Development and Demonstration
contract award to a sole source contractor. The program director, a fast-burning young colonel,
e-mails you that she is very concerned with the aircraft's ultimate speed at the full specification
payload. She would like the contractor to achieve the faster, desired objective speed rather than
the mandatory threshold speed, and thinks that an objective performance incentive would be
the way to go to achieve her goal. You are asked to go to her office and discuss the matter and
the issues involved in using such an incentive. What do you tell the colonel? - (ANSWERS)There
are a number of considerations for the colonel:
The desired additional speed should provide benefit to the Government in order to justify the
expenditure of funds to achieve it. The colonel should be able to articulate the justification.
The situation is very amenable to a classic performance incentive that would allow the
contractor to earn profit for achieving the desired speed above and beyond what the final FPIF
profit would be for achieving threshold speed. If the contractor perceives this can't happen, he
will either not sign up to the incentive or will ignore it from Day One.
The incentive and resulting payment have to be structured so as to be based on observable,
measurable results that would determine how much is earned by the contractor. Subjectivity is
not allowable under current AF policy without HCA approval.
We have to be very careful to understand what possible unintended consequences could be
caused by the existence of this feature in the contract. For example, will the contractor reduce
aircraft weight beyond safe limits in order to help achieve the payment? Also, will the contractor
consume excessive schedule to get the extra speed?
There has to be a cost incentive in place so that the contractor doesn't spend an unconstrained
amount of money to win the payment, such as under a CPFF contract. The FPIF share line
serves this purpose when balanced against the incentive.
The incentive has to be balanced with the FPIF share line so that the contractor doesn't spend
more money to achieve the desired speed than he has potential to earn by receiving the
, CONTRACTING OFFICER WARRANT BOARD EXAM 2025
CURRENTLY TESTING FINAL EXAM AND PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED
VERIFIED ANSWERS /ALREADY GRADED A+
#$%^&
payment. Similarly, the contractor can't be allowed to spend an excessive amount of money
with little cost penalty to achieve success.
In some cases, Contracting Officers are also Grants Officers. They can award Grants and
Assistance Instruments as well as contracts. What is Assistance? How does it differ from
Acquisition? What gives the Grants Officers their authority to enter into assistance? What are
the types of Assistance? - (ANSWERS)When the principal purpose is to transfer a thing of value,
to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by law of the United States,
it is Assistance.
Acquisition, by contrast, has the principal purpose of acquiring property or services for the
direct benefit or use of the United States Government.
Federal agencies must be authorized by statute to support or stimulate a public purpose. The
statutory authority from Congress must exist either in broad legislation or in a program-specific
statute. Absent that statutory authority, a Grants Officer may not use an assistance instrument.
Authorities to issue Assistance can be of three types: (1) Provide to the Secretary of Defense by
statute, e.g., 10 U.S.C. 2391; (2) Authority provided to DoD components that requires no
delegation by the Secretary of Defense, e.g., 10 U.S.C. 2358; (3) Authority coming indirectly from
statutes, i.e., federal statute authorizing a program that is consistent with using a grant or
cooperative agreement.
Two types of Assistance are Grants and Cooperative Agreements. They differ in the following
way: In a Grant, substantial involvement is not expected between the agency and the recipient.
In Cooperative Agreement, substantial involvement is expected between the agency and the
recipient. Cooperative Agreements, then, are particularly useful in the research arena when the
Government is interested in being involved in program decisions or may be doing some testing
or research themselves.
You are the Contracting Officer on a new Research and Development program. Proposals were
recently received in response to a Broad Agency Announcement, and a Cost Plus Fixed Fee
contract type is anticipated. The proposal most favored by the technical team was priced
significantly under what was estimated for the effort. The contractor proposed fee in an amount
that equates to 20% of the estimated cost. The users have more than enough funds to cover the
proposal and want you to accept the price as is. How should you advise the user and what
factors should you consider in determining a reasonable fee? - (ANSWERS)The statutory
limitation on fee for CPFF type contracts do no permit exceeding 15% of estimated cost for
experimental, developmental, or research performed under a CPFF contract. Since the
proposed amount of fee is outside the statutory limitations you need to determine what a fair
and reasonable rate is that falls within the limitations. The FAR recommends a structured
approach for determining fee such as Weighted Guidelines. If a cost reasonableness review
determines the estimated costs to be acceptable, we can still negotiate and adjust the fee.
, CONTRACTING OFFICER WARRANT BOARD EXAM 2025
CURRENTLY TESTING FINAL EXAM AND PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED
VERIFIED ANSWERS /ALREADY GRADED A+
#$%^&
You are the Contracting Officer for a well established transport aircraft program. The program
is nearing the end of production. A Program Manager approaches you requesting that you issue
a Broad Area Announcement (BAA) to support the development of a source list to supply active
noise reducing headsets. The headsets are commercially available from multiple sources and
the PM wants to receive performance specification sheets from each offeror and then request
sample headsets be submitted for testing. The end result of the effort will be the development
of a source list that can be used by various government entities to individually procure the
needed headsets for their specific requirements. The PM tells you that he will not be procuring
any of the headsets as a result of the BAA. What do you advise the PM? - (ANSWERS)You should
advise the PM that BAAs are a method of solicitation and can only be used if the Government
intends to award a contract. You might suggest that the development of the source list could
be achieved by issuing a Sources Sought Synopsis with the synopsis specifying the 2 step
process (spec sheets first and then sample headsets from selected offerors), and the ultimate
intent of the process, e.g., a source list for use by individual users in future procurements. You
might also advise the PM that there could be liability issues associated with the use, handling,
and return of the headsets to the offerors and that it might be appropriate for the Government
to cover shipping and any damage/wear to the units for the testing.
A. Under what circumstances is ratification of an unauthorized commitment permitted?
B. In general, what are the generic procedures for handling ratification actions?
C. Who are the approval authorities for ratifications? - (ANSWERS)A. If the contract award
would have been proper if executed by a warranted PCO, the price can be determined to be fair
and reasonable, and there must have been enough of the proper type of funding available to
pay for the item both at the time of the commitment and at the time of the ratification.
B. An investigation is required to be completed within 30 days of discovery of the unauthorized
commitment explaining how and why it occurred, how future occurrences will be avoided, and
describing any corrective actions taken against responsible individuals. Legal review is also
required.
C. The ratification approving official for all unauthorized commitments valued at or above $1M
is the SPE. The ratification approving official for all Non-DISA unauthorized commitments
(regardless of amount) and DISA unauthorized commitments valued below $1M is the HCA.
(DARS 1.602-3(b)(2))
You are the Contracting Officer for a much-delayed effort. On Friday you finally receive the
necessary authority to release the contract for signature. It's late on Friday afternoon when you
e-mail the modification to the contractor for signature. The only person at the contractor's
office on Friday afternoon is the Company President's 17 year old daughter who is working there
as a summer-hire secretary. She knows her father urgently wants the contract modification so
she signs the document and returns it to your office. You note the last name is the same as the
President's so assume that he's the one who signed the modification. Is this a legal agreement?
, CONTRACTING OFFICER WARRANT BOARD EXAM 2025
CURRENTLY TESTING FINAL EXAM AND PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED
VERIFIED ANSWERS /ALREADY GRADED A+
#$%^&
- (ANSWERS)Probably not. The elements of a contract are - offer, acceptance, consideration,
for a lawful purpose, certainty of terms, and legal capacity. It is unlikely that a 17 year old
summer hire would have the authority to bind the company, regardless of her relationship to
the Company President. Courts may generally find that individuals lack "the age majority" if
they are under 18 years of age.
The law in a given jurisdiction may never actually use the term "age of majority" and the term
thereby refers to a collection of laws bestowing the status of adulthood. The age of majority is
a legally fixed age, concept, or statutory principle, which may differ depending on the
jurisdiction, and may not necessarily correspond to actual mental or physical maturity of an
individual.
In practical terms, there are certain specific actions which a person who attains the age of
majority is permitted to take, which they could not do before. These may include entering into
a binding contract, buying stocks, voting, buying and/or consuming alcoholic beverages, driving
motor vehicles on public roads, and marrying without obtaining consent of others. The ages at
which these various rights or powers may be exercised vary as between the various rights and
as between different jurisdictions. For example, the ages at which a person may obtain a
license to drive a car or consume alcoholic beverages vary considerably between and also
within jurisdictions.
You are the Contracting Officer for a follow-on buy source selection. The current effort has had
the same Program Manager for over 10 years. She began as the PM while still a Military Officer
and then retired and was re-hired as an A&AS employee to continue to manage the program.
She has extensive experience on the program and is considered a Primary "Go To" person for all
Program-related managerial issues.
The Program Director wants to utilize the PM's experience to the fullest extent possible and has
proposed that the PM be listed as chief of the technical evaluation team and also a voting
member of the source selection board.
Is it permissible to have a non-Government employee (A&AS contractor) as chief of the
technical evaluation team and a voting member of the source selection board? - (ANSWERS)It
is not permissible to have a non-Government employee as a voting member of any source
selection board. FAR 7.503(c)(12)(ii). FAR policy states that contracts shall not be used for the
performance of inherently governmental functions. OMB may review Agency decisions to
determine whether a function is or is not an inherently governmental function, but a list of
examples is in FAR 7.503(c). They include: control of criminal investigations or prosecutions,
command of military forces, determination of agency policy and application of regulations,
determining budget priorities, and direction and control of federal employees. Specifically,
included in this list are determining what supplies or services shall be acquired by the
Government on a prime contract and being a voting member of any source selection boards
CURRENTLY TESTING FINAL EXAM AND PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED
VERIFIED ANSWERS /ALREADY GRADED A+
#$%^&
You are the PCO for a major competitive negotiated source selection. The RFP, which reflects
the user's requirements and is based on the user's budget, has a requirement for 220 cargo
loaders to be delivered at 55 per year over the next four years. One offeror proposes to deliver
all 220 loaders in the first year at a dramatically reduced price. Can you accept the offeror's
proposal? What factors should you consider in your decision? - (ANSWERS)You can accept the
offeror's proposal under certain circumstances. Firstly, what did the RFP say about alternate
proposals? Is this a situation where requirements are changed and the other offerors should be
allowed to propose on the basis of the changed requirements? You need to ask the user if he
wants all 220 in the first year and are the operating locations physically able to accommodate
their loaders in the first year. Finally, the offeror could be taken into discussions and asked to
conform to the RFP with there being the possibility of not being selected for award or
elimination from the competitive range if the proposal is not made compliant with the RFP.
You are the PCO on a new $2B aircraft development program. The program is in contract
negotiations for a Fixed Price Incentive (Firm Target) System Development and Demonstration
contract award to a sole source contractor. The program director, a fast-burning young colonel,
e-mails you that she is very concerned with the aircraft's ultimate speed at the full specification
payload. She would like the contractor to achieve the faster, desired objective speed rather than
the mandatory threshold speed, and thinks that an objective performance incentive would be
the way to go to achieve her goal. You are asked to go to her office and discuss the matter and
the issues involved in using such an incentive. What do you tell the colonel? - (ANSWERS)There
are a number of considerations for the colonel:
The desired additional speed should provide benefit to the Government in order to justify the
expenditure of funds to achieve it. The colonel should be able to articulate the justification.
The situation is very amenable to a classic performance incentive that would allow the
contractor to earn profit for achieving the desired speed above and beyond what the final FPIF
profit would be for achieving threshold speed. If the contractor perceives this can't happen, he
will either not sign up to the incentive or will ignore it from Day One.
The incentive and resulting payment have to be structured so as to be based on observable,
measurable results that would determine how much is earned by the contractor. Subjectivity is
not allowable under current AF policy without HCA approval.
We have to be very careful to understand what possible unintended consequences could be
caused by the existence of this feature in the contract. For example, will the contractor reduce
aircraft weight beyond safe limits in order to help achieve the payment? Also, will the contractor
consume excessive schedule to get the extra speed?
There has to be a cost incentive in place so that the contractor doesn't spend an unconstrained
amount of money to win the payment, such as under a CPFF contract. The FPIF share line
serves this purpose when balanced against the incentive.
The incentive has to be balanced with the FPIF share line so that the contractor doesn't spend
more money to achieve the desired speed than he has potential to earn by receiving the
, CONTRACTING OFFICER WARRANT BOARD EXAM 2025
CURRENTLY TESTING FINAL EXAM AND PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED
VERIFIED ANSWERS /ALREADY GRADED A+
#$%^&
payment. Similarly, the contractor can't be allowed to spend an excessive amount of money
with little cost penalty to achieve success.
In some cases, Contracting Officers are also Grants Officers. They can award Grants and
Assistance Instruments as well as contracts. What is Assistance? How does it differ from
Acquisition? What gives the Grants Officers their authority to enter into assistance? What are
the types of Assistance? - (ANSWERS)When the principal purpose is to transfer a thing of value,
to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by law of the United States,
it is Assistance.
Acquisition, by contrast, has the principal purpose of acquiring property or services for the
direct benefit or use of the United States Government.
Federal agencies must be authorized by statute to support or stimulate a public purpose. The
statutory authority from Congress must exist either in broad legislation or in a program-specific
statute. Absent that statutory authority, a Grants Officer may not use an assistance instrument.
Authorities to issue Assistance can be of three types: (1) Provide to the Secretary of Defense by
statute, e.g., 10 U.S.C. 2391; (2) Authority provided to DoD components that requires no
delegation by the Secretary of Defense, e.g., 10 U.S.C. 2358; (3) Authority coming indirectly from
statutes, i.e., federal statute authorizing a program that is consistent with using a grant or
cooperative agreement.
Two types of Assistance are Grants and Cooperative Agreements. They differ in the following
way: In a Grant, substantial involvement is not expected between the agency and the recipient.
In Cooperative Agreement, substantial involvement is expected between the agency and the
recipient. Cooperative Agreements, then, are particularly useful in the research arena when the
Government is interested in being involved in program decisions or may be doing some testing
or research themselves.
You are the Contracting Officer on a new Research and Development program. Proposals were
recently received in response to a Broad Agency Announcement, and a Cost Plus Fixed Fee
contract type is anticipated. The proposal most favored by the technical team was priced
significantly under what was estimated for the effort. The contractor proposed fee in an amount
that equates to 20% of the estimated cost. The users have more than enough funds to cover the
proposal and want you to accept the price as is. How should you advise the user and what
factors should you consider in determining a reasonable fee? - (ANSWERS)The statutory
limitation on fee for CPFF type contracts do no permit exceeding 15% of estimated cost for
experimental, developmental, or research performed under a CPFF contract. Since the
proposed amount of fee is outside the statutory limitations you need to determine what a fair
and reasonable rate is that falls within the limitations. The FAR recommends a structured
approach for determining fee such as Weighted Guidelines. If a cost reasonableness review
determines the estimated costs to be acceptable, we can still negotiate and adjust the fee.
, CONTRACTING OFFICER WARRANT BOARD EXAM 2025
CURRENTLY TESTING FINAL EXAM AND PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED
VERIFIED ANSWERS /ALREADY GRADED A+
#$%^&
You are the Contracting Officer for a well established transport aircraft program. The program
is nearing the end of production. A Program Manager approaches you requesting that you issue
a Broad Area Announcement (BAA) to support the development of a source list to supply active
noise reducing headsets. The headsets are commercially available from multiple sources and
the PM wants to receive performance specification sheets from each offeror and then request
sample headsets be submitted for testing. The end result of the effort will be the development
of a source list that can be used by various government entities to individually procure the
needed headsets for their specific requirements. The PM tells you that he will not be procuring
any of the headsets as a result of the BAA. What do you advise the PM? - (ANSWERS)You should
advise the PM that BAAs are a method of solicitation and can only be used if the Government
intends to award a contract. You might suggest that the development of the source list could
be achieved by issuing a Sources Sought Synopsis with the synopsis specifying the 2 step
process (spec sheets first and then sample headsets from selected offerors), and the ultimate
intent of the process, e.g., a source list for use by individual users in future procurements. You
might also advise the PM that there could be liability issues associated with the use, handling,
and return of the headsets to the offerors and that it might be appropriate for the Government
to cover shipping and any damage/wear to the units for the testing.
A. Under what circumstances is ratification of an unauthorized commitment permitted?
B. In general, what are the generic procedures for handling ratification actions?
C. Who are the approval authorities for ratifications? - (ANSWERS)A. If the contract award
would have been proper if executed by a warranted PCO, the price can be determined to be fair
and reasonable, and there must have been enough of the proper type of funding available to
pay for the item both at the time of the commitment and at the time of the ratification.
B. An investigation is required to be completed within 30 days of discovery of the unauthorized
commitment explaining how and why it occurred, how future occurrences will be avoided, and
describing any corrective actions taken against responsible individuals. Legal review is also
required.
C. The ratification approving official for all unauthorized commitments valued at or above $1M
is the SPE. The ratification approving official for all Non-DISA unauthorized commitments
(regardless of amount) and DISA unauthorized commitments valued below $1M is the HCA.
(DARS 1.602-3(b)(2))
You are the Contracting Officer for a much-delayed effort. On Friday you finally receive the
necessary authority to release the contract for signature. It's late on Friday afternoon when you
e-mail the modification to the contractor for signature. The only person at the contractor's
office on Friday afternoon is the Company President's 17 year old daughter who is working there
as a summer-hire secretary. She knows her father urgently wants the contract modification so
she signs the document and returns it to your office. You note the last name is the same as the
President's so assume that he's the one who signed the modification. Is this a legal agreement?
, CONTRACTING OFFICER WARRANT BOARD EXAM 2025
CURRENTLY TESTING FINAL EXAM AND PRACTICE EXAM
QUESTIONS COMPLETE EXAM QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED
VERIFIED ANSWERS /ALREADY GRADED A+
#$%^&
- (ANSWERS)Probably not. The elements of a contract are - offer, acceptance, consideration,
for a lawful purpose, certainty of terms, and legal capacity. It is unlikely that a 17 year old
summer hire would have the authority to bind the company, regardless of her relationship to
the Company President. Courts may generally find that individuals lack "the age majority" if
they are under 18 years of age.
The law in a given jurisdiction may never actually use the term "age of majority" and the term
thereby refers to a collection of laws bestowing the status of adulthood. The age of majority is
a legally fixed age, concept, or statutory principle, which may differ depending on the
jurisdiction, and may not necessarily correspond to actual mental or physical maturity of an
individual.
In practical terms, there are certain specific actions which a person who attains the age of
majority is permitted to take, which they could not do before. These may include entering into
a binding contract, buying stocks, voting, buying and/or consuming alcoholic beverages, driving
motor vehicles on public roads, and marrying without obtaining consent of others. The ages at
which these various rights or powers may be exercised vary as between the various rights and
as between different jurisdictions. For example, the ages at which a person may obtain a
license to drive a car or consume alcoholic beverages vary considerably between and also
within jurisdictions.
You are the Contracting Officer for a follow-on buy source selection. The current effort has had
the same Program Manager for over 10 years. She began as the PM while still a Military Officer
and then retired and was re-hired as an A&AS employee to continue to manage the program.
She has extensive experience on the program and is considered a Primary "Go To" person for all
Program-related managerial issues.
The Program Director wants to utilize the PM's experience to the fullest extent possible and has
proposed that the PM be listed as chief of the technical evaluation team and also a voting
member of the source selection board.
Is it permissible to have a non-Government employee (A&AS contractor) as chief of the
technical evaluation team and a voting member of the source selection board? - (ANSWERS)It
is not permissible to have a non-Government employee as a voting member of any source
selection board. FAR 7.503(c)(12)(ii). FAR policy states that contracts shall not be used for the
performance of inherently governmental functions. OMB may review Agency decisions to
determine whether a function is or is not an inherently governmental function, but a list of
examples is in FAR 7.503(c). They include: control of criminal investigations or prosecutions,
command of military forces, determination of agency policy and application of regulations,
determining budget priorities, and direction and control of federal employees. Specifically,
included in this list are determining what supplies or services shall be acquired by the
Government on a prime contract and being a voting member of any source selection boards
