What is the most likely consequence if a contract is awarded without delegated authority from the executive branch?

What is the most likely consequence if a contract is awarded without delegated authority from the executive branch?

• A. The contract remains valid if the supplier performs satisfactorily
• B. The contract may be considered void or unenforceable due to lack of authority
• C. The supplier automatically assumes the legal liability
• D. The procurement office can retroactively approve the purchase without issue

Answer: (B)

Authority to bind the government comes from delegated power within the executive branch. When a contract is awarded without that authority, there isn’t a valid legal basis for the government to be bound, so the agreement can be void or unenforceable even if the supplier has already performed. The absence of proper authorization means the act is not a legitimate exercise of official power, so the government can’t be compelled to honor it. The idea that performance would somehow fix the situation or that retroactive approval could legitimize the award ignores the fundamental requirement for proper delegation and is not reliable in practice.

Authority to bind the government comes from delegated power within the executive branch. When a contract is awarded without that authority, there isn’t a valid legal basis for the government to be bound, so the agreement can be void or unenforceable even if the supplier has already performed. The absence of proper authorization means the act is not a legitimate exercise of official power, so the government can’t be compelled to honor it. The idea that performance would somehow fix the situation or that retroactive approval could legitimize the award ignores the fundamental requirement for proper delegation and is not reliable in practice.