Quarter-End Overobligation in an Operations and Maintenance Account
On 15 August, an installation's O&M account shows $62.4 million in obligational authority, $61.9 million in recorded obligations, and a $1.2 million utility invoice for July service that the utility office has not yet entered. A contracting officer also wants to place a $0.4 million order for custodial supplies before year-end. The accountant proposes to deobligate $1.5 million from a completed construction-support contract and use that amount to cover the utility invoice and the supply order. The deobligation package has not been approved, and the contract file still shows a $0.2 million retention payable. The comptroller must decide what to record before 30 September and whether a report is required. The installation has no prior ADA violations and the fund holder wants to avoid a year-end use-it-or-lose-it rush.
1. What is the correct obligation status of the utility invoice and the proposed supply order, and does the account have a potential Anti-Deficiency Act violation? Show the calculation.
Read the worked answer
Obligational authority is $62.4M. Recorded obligations are $61.9M, leaving $0.5M. The July utility service is a bona fide need of the current year and must be recorded when the obligation is incurred, even if the invoice is late: $61.9M + $1.2M = $63.1M, which exceeds authority by $0.7M. That is a potential Anti-Deficiency Act violation under 31 U.S.C. 1341. The $0.4M supply order cannot be placed because, once the utility obligation is recorded, there is no available balance. If the supply order were placed first, it would appear to fit within $0.5M, but that would still leave the utility obligation unfunded and would not cure the overobligation. The comptroller should record the valid obligation, stop new obligations, and refer the matter for ADA review. The key point is that unrecorded valid obligations count against the account; a negative available balance is not resolved by delaying entry.
2. Can the proposed $1.5 million deobligation cure the problem? What steps and reporting are required?
Read the worked answer
The $1.5M deobligation is not automatically available. The contract file shows $0.2M retention payable, so at most $1.3M could be deobligated after a written determination that the work is complete and no further obligation exists. Even then, the deobligation cures the balance prospectively: authority remains $62.4M, obligations become $63.1M - $1.3M = $61.8M, leaving $0.6M. It does not erase the overobligation that occurred when the utility obligation was incurred. The comptroller must report the violation through command channels, prepare a statement of facts, determine whether the violation was knowing and willful, and coordinate with counsel and the agency's ADA reporting authority. Corrective actions should include monthly accrual of utility costs, open-commitment reviews, a deobligation review before year-end, and reconciliation of the utility office's records to the accounting system. The $0.4M supply order should wait until the ADA review and the deobligation are complete.
3. The fund holder asks whether the $0.4 million supply order should be executed simply to avoid losing the remaining balance. How should the comptroller respond?
Read the worked answer
No. The bona fide needs rule prohibits obligating funds solely to avoid losing them. The fund holder must identify a legitimate current-year need for the custodial supplies, and the supply order must be supported by a valid requirement. Stockpiling or accelerating a future-year need into the current year creates a time-statute problem and can itself be an ADA violation. If a valid need exists and funds are available after the deobligation, the order can be placed; otherwise, the balance should expire. The comptroller should document the requirement review and communicate that year-end execution is not a performance measure.