jreeves
Senior Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 6,588
- 319
- 48
y'all peruse 31 U.S.C. 6301-6305:
US CODE: Title 31,CHAPTER 63—USING PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
then get back and share with us how the distinction between the award of a contract versus a grant has any impact on the discussion at hand
it doesn't but when you recognize that, don't shrink away from your discovery. let the other members of your kool aid contingent know, too
Dumbass, you can't change the meaning of a word. The word grant is to bestow something on someone, or in other words giving a gift. Gifts are specifically outside the realm of contracts.
From your link, one of little mind.
CHAPTER 63—USING PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
# § 6301. Purposes
# § 6302. Definitions
# § 6303. Using procurement contracts
# § 6304. Using grant agreements
# § 6305. Using cooperative agreements
# § 6306. Authority to vest title in tangible personal property for research
# § 6307. Interpretative guidelines and exemptions
# § 6308. Use of multiple relationships for different parts of jointly financed projects
From 6304...
An executive agency shall use a grant agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when—
(1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; and
(2) substantial involvement is not expected between the executive agency and the State, local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement.
Or bestow upon....Cheese and rice, your stupid.
No where does it mention any consideration upon the recipient....
See dumbass...
https://www.mott.org/toolbox/resources/patriotact/grantsvscontracts.aspx
Grants primarily benefit a particular grantee by furthering the grantee’s own exempt purposes and programs. A grantor’s involvement with a grant generally is limited to grant administration and monitoring.
Mott decided to distinguish between grants and contracts for products and services for several reasons:
1. Many contracts involve the routine purchases of products [such as office supplies and equipment] and services [such as accounting, travel, or financial services] that involve little, if any, risk of diversion of funds to terrorist organizations or for terrorist purposes. In Mott's view, the burden of list-checking all such contracts far outweighs whatever limited benefit list-checking might provide.
2. As noted above, contracts, as opposed to grants, generally require the contractor to produce some specific work product or service for the payor, often at a contract price that is negotiated or which is set by the market for such products or services. Mott therefore concluded that this limitation on how the contractor spends the payor's funds greatly reduces the opportunity for the contractor to divert funds to improper purposes.
3. Finally, unlike the case with grants, most contracts involve some supervision or control by the payor over the expenditure of funds by the contractor [and on the ultimate product or service]. This again reduces the opportunity for an improper diversion of funds.
Still, as noted earlier, the line between a grant and a contract can sometimes be blurry and some contracts may represent some or all of the same risks presented by grants. Consider, for example, a contract with a public charity for the conduct of long-term project evaluation or study, where the organization often engages in project evaluations [for others] within its field of interest, sometimes using grant funds and sometimes on a contract basis. Therefore, Mott reserves the right in a particular case to require a Mott grantee to list-check a contractor [or to take other appropriate steps to assure funds paid to the contractor are not diverted].
Under applicable IRS rules and regulations, payments by a foundation to third parties for travel, lodging, and tuition (and reimbursements for these purposes) are typically considered grants. When a Mott grantee makes such payments to or on behalf of third party individuals or organizations using Mott funds, the payments normally would be considered re-grants by the Mott grantee. Thus, they would ordinarily be subject to the list-checking requirement. We believe that, under certain circumstances, payments for travel, lodging, and tuition expenses may qualify for an exception to the list-checking requirement. However, the exception to the list-checking requirement must have our approval. Therefore, please contact your Mott program officer for further information.
In contrast, a contract for services primarily benefits the payor’s own program directly, although the recipient of the contract payments may receive incidental benefits in addition to compensation for services (that is, use of the report or study for its own purposes). Usually there will be some direct tangible benefit, such as a report or study that is given to the payor. Common examples of contracts for services involve hiring consultants or other resource persons to prepare a report for the payor. The payor also may maintain some significant, direct involvement in the activities funded by a contract for services – for example, the right to review the work done, make suggestions, and the like.
Is that clear enough for you....