1.3 Delegation, Ratification and Model Codes

Delegation of Authority & The Warrant System

The constitution, enabling legislation, charter, and procurement code determine where contracting authority resides. A governing body, executive official, procurement officer, or another designated officer may exercise it. Many agencies delegate operational purchasing authority in writing.

[ Governing Body (Legislature / City Council / County Commission) ]
                               │
                               ▼  (Statutory Enabling Act / City Charter)
                 [ Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) ]
                               │
       ┌───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┐
       ▼                       ▼                       ▼
[ Senior Buyers ]       [ Associate Buyers ]    [ Department Liaisons ]
(Warrant: Up to \$250K)   (Warrant: Up to \$50K)   (Warrant: Up to \$10K)

The Chief Procurement Officer (CPO)

Centralized procurement legislation typically establishes a Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) or Director of Purchasing who is vested with statutory authority to oversee all public purchasing, establish administrative regulations, standardize commodity specifications, and execute contracts. In centralized systems, operating departments (such as Parks, Transportation, or Health) cannot contract directly with vendors; they must submit requisitions to the central purchasing office.

The Warrant System

Some agencies use a formal warrant system; others use delegation letters, ordinances, or approval matrices. Similar to military or federal contracting models, a warrant is an official written instrument that explicitly delegates contracting authority to an individual procurement professional. The warrant defines:

• Dollar Limitations: The maximum monetary value of a contract, purchase order, or modification the warrant holder is authorized to sign (e.g., Buyer I: up to $25,000; Senior Buyer: up to $100,000; Purchasing Agent: up to $250,000; CPO: up to $1,000,000; Governing Board approval required above $1,000,000).
• Authorized Commodity Categories: Specific scopes of procurement, such as general commodities, professional architectural/engineering services, information technology, or heavy construction.
• Permitted Sourcing Methods: Restrictions on whether the buyer may execute emergency purchases, sole-source determinations, or multi-year lease agreements.

Any public employee who signs a procurement commitment without a valid warrant—or who exceeds the financial or commodity limits specified in their warrant—acts outside their legal authority.

---

Unauthorized commitments, ultra vires acts, and ratification

Ultra vires means beyond legal powers. Distinguish an agreement the entity had no power to make from one an employee lacked authority to sign. Both are serious, but remedies differ. A lack of delegated authority does not establish a universal rule that every public contract is void or every supplier loses all restitution rights.

Ratification is an authorized official's approval of an otherwise unauthorized commitment where the governing law permits it. Federal FAR 1.602-3 provides a useful federal example: review whether the government received a benefit, the ratifying officer has authority, the resulting contract would otherwise have been proper, the price is fair and reasonable, funds were available at the time and remain available, and required legal review and agency procedures are satisfied. These are not automatically the rules of every municipality.

The buyer should stop additional unauthorized directions, preserve the original commitment and receiving records, notify procurement management and counsel, verify funding and competitive requirements, and seek a written determination. Ratification cannot be assumed merely because goods are useful or the employee acted honestly. If the entity lacked underlying power or a mandatory competition requirement was bypassed, counsel must determine the available remedy; an after-the-fact signature is not a substitute for lawful procurement.

Read the federal ratification rule.

The ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments

In 1979, the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Public Contract Law published the Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments, which underwent a comprehensive revision in 2000. While not federal law, the Model Procurement Code (MPC) is an influential model that jurisdictions may adopt or adapt; it is not itself binding law unless enacted.

Purpose & Modular Architecture

The MPC was developed to eliminate fragmented, outdated, and contradictory purchasing rules across jurisdictions. It provides a modern, standardized legal architecture designed to:

• Maximize full and open competition;
• Foster public confidence in the integrity of government contracting;
• Ensure fair and equitable treatment of all persons dealing with the procurement system;
• Provide increased economy in procurement activities; and
• Establish clear administrative remedies for bid protests and contract disputes.

The MPC uses a modular statutory structure, allowing state and local legislative bodies to adopt individual articles or sections that align with their local legal requirements while preserving a cohesive statutory framework.

Reading a model code as a framework

The model addresses organization and delegation, source selection, specifications, construction and professional services, contract modifications, cost principles, supply management, remedies, cooperative purchasing, business assistance, and ethics. Use it to understand how these functions relate. For an actual purchase, cite the enacted provision of the buyer's jurisdiction rather than treating the ABA publication as a national statute.

For example, an enacted code may make sealed bidding the ordinary method and require a written determination before using competitive proposals. Another code may authorize best-value selection for additional categories. The buyer must identify the applicable method, required determination, approval authority, and documentation before issuing the solicitation.

The Baseline Presumption of Competitive Sealed Bidding

A central legal doctrine of the MPC (codified in Article 3) is the statutory presumption of competitive sealed bidding. Under the MPC, competitive sealed bidding (an Invitation for Bids) is the default and required method of source selection for all contracts exceeding the small purchase threshold. A public entity may only use competitive sealed proposals (a Request for Proposals) if the procurement officer prepares a formal written determination demonstrating that competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous to the public entity (e.g., when technical requirements are complex, discussions are necessary, or evaluation criteria other than price must be weighed).

---

Worked example: an unauthorized software commitment

Assume a city's written delegation gives the IT director no authority to sign software contracts above $10,000. The director signs a three-year agreement totaling $144,000, with three equal annual payments of $48,000, without procurement review. Installation does not automatically cure the missing authority.

The buyer preserves the agreement and communications, prevents further unauthorized orders, and asks counsel to review the governing code. Finance checks whether funds were available and whether future-year commitments are lawful. Procurement reviews price reasonableness and whether the purchase required competition. If the law permits ratification and all conditions are met, the authorized official may approve it in writing. Otherwise, counsel determines return, negotiated resolution, restitution exposure, or other remedies. Do not promise the vendor payment or assert that restitution is impossible before that review.

The exam lesson is the sequence: verify authority, protect records, check competition and funding, and use the authorized remedy. Neither a senior job title nor a desire to avoid embarrassment supplies contracting authority.