type: other

text: b' OFFICE OF\n THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nSOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\n\n\n THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\xe2\x80\x99S\nAGENCY-WIDE SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT\n WITH LOCKHEED MARTIN\n\n\n October 2011 A-14-10-11004\n\n\n\n\nAUDIT REPORT\n\x0c Mission\nBy conducting independent and objective audits, evaluations and investigations,\nwe inspire public confidence in the integrity and security of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs and\noperations and protect them against fraud, waste and abuse. We provide timely,\nuseful and reliable information and advice to Administration officials, Congress\nand the public.\n\n Authority\nThe Inspector General Act created independent audit and investigative units,\ncalled the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The mission of the OIG, as spelled\nout in the Act, is to:\n\n \xef\x82\xa6 Conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and\n investigations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the agency.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in agency programs and\n operations.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed\n legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Keep the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of\n problems in agency programs and operations.\n\n To ensure objectivity, the IG Act empowers the IG with:\n\n \xef\x82\xa6 Independence to determine what reviews to perform.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Access to all information necessary for the reviews.\n \xef\x82\xa6 Authority to publish findings and recommendations based on the reviews.\n\n Vision\nWe strive for continual improvement in SSA\xe2\x80\x99s programs, operations and\nmanagement by proactively seeking new ways to prevent and deter fraud, waste\nand abuse. We commit to integrity and excellence by supporting an environment\nthat provides a valuable public service while encouraging employee development\nand retention and fostering diversity and innovation.\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\nMEMORANDUM\n\nDate: October 28, 2011 Refer To:\n\nTo: The Commissioner\n\nFrom: Inspector General\n\nSubject: The Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s Agency-wide Support Services Contract with\n Lockheed Martin (A-14-10-11004)\n\n\n OBJECTIVE\n Our objectives were to (1) ensure the Social Security Administration (SSA) received the\n goods and services for which it contracted; and (2) review the services provided by\n Lockheed Martin Information Technology Commercial Corporation (LM) and the related\n costs charged to the SSA to ensure it adhered to the negotiated contract terms and\n relevant Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).\n\n BACKGROUND\n In November 2004, SSA signed an Agency-wide Support Services Contract (AWSSC)1\n with LM. SSA used the contract to supplement existing staff with individuals who had\n the specialized technical skills to help SSA achieve its strategic goals. The contract\n supplied SSA with 600 to 800 programmers and information technology specialists.\n Under the contract, LM was to provide support in the following six technical areas:\n\n 1. application design, development, testing, and maintenance;\n 2. database administration, imaging, and document management;\n 3. data administration, programmatic repository, and enterprise architecture;\n 4. software engineering and technology;\n 5. emerging technology applications; and\n 6. software engineering management.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Contract Number SS00-05-60011.\n\x0cPage 2 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nThe contract was an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), 2 Time-and-Materials\n(T&M) 3 contract for commercial items. 4 The contract was for 1 year with 6 option\nyears. 5 At the end of the fourth option year, SSA modified the contract to a firm-fixed-\nprice contract. 6 The Agency modified the contract to comply with Office of Management\nand Budget (OMB) guidance that encouraged Federal agencies to use fixed-price\ncontracts. 7 LM\xe2\x80\x99s efforts were to be identified and allocated via individual task and work\norders that precisely define the scope, deliverables, and schedule of the work to be\nissued. SSA required that Agency senior management review and approve all planned\ntasks before LM initiated work. 8\n\nAccording to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s AWSSC Contract Administration Handbook,9 \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6tasks are reviewed\nto ensure: (1) consistency with SSA\xe2\x80\x99s strategic plans; (2) justification based on mission\nneed or economic benefits; (3) accurate specification of the activities, resources, costs,\nand schedules needed to achieve stated objectives; and (4) adherence to the scope\nand provisions of the contract.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n2\n FAR \xc2\xa7 16.501-2(a), states, in part, that \xe2\x80\x9cThe appropriate type of indefinite-delivery contract may be used\nto acquire supplies and/or services when the exact times and/or exact quantities of future deliveries are\nnot known at the time of contract award.\xe2\x80\x9d FAR \xc2\xa7 16.501-2(b)(3) states \xe2\x80\x9c. . .Indefinite-quantity contracts\nlimit the Government\xe2\x80\x99s obligation to the minimum quantity specified in the contract.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n3\n FAR, Subpart 16.601(b), states, \xe2\x80\x9c. . . A time-and-materials contract provides for acquiring supplies or\nservices on the basis of (1) Direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates that include wages,\noverhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit; and (2) Actual cost for materials (except as\nprovided for in 31.205-26(e) and (f)).\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n4\n A commercial item includes any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the\npublic or by non-government entities for purposes other than government purposes, and (i) has been\nsold, leased or licensed to the general public; or (ii) has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the\ngeneral public. FAR \xc2\xa7 2.101.\n5\n The AWSSC was to expire on September 30, 2011; however, SSA spent all contract funding by the end\nof Fiscal Year 2010. SSA pursued an early recompetition to award a new contract before contract\nfunding was exhausted.\n6\n A firm-fixed-price contract provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment based on the\ncontractor\xe2\x80\x99s cost experience in performing the contract.\n7\n OMB guidance states, \xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6time-and-materials and labor-hour (T&M/LH) contracts pose special risks of\noverspending\xe2\x80\xa6.T&M/LH contracts pose a risk because they provide no direct incentive to the contractor\nfor cost control\xe2\x80\xa6.Accordingly, agencies should begin taking actions to reduce use of these high risk\ncontracting authorities for new contract actions.\xe2\x80\x9d OMB, M-09-25, Improving Government Acquisition, \xc2\xa7 II.\n(July 29, 2009).\n8\n SSA, Agency-wide Support Services Contract - Contract Administration Handbook, September 2009,\npage 10.\n9\n Id.\n\x0cPage 3 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nThe contract ended on September 29, 2010. During the life of the contract, SSA issued\n271 task orders 10 totaling approximately $536 million.\n\n LM AWSSC (SS00-05-60011)\nContract Total Total Total Amount\n Period of Performance\n Year Hours FTE 11 (in Thousands)\n 1 November 16, 2004 - September 29, 2005 810,208 564 $48,599\n 2 September 30, 2005 - September 29, 2006 1,603,959 835 $93,800\n 3 September 30, 2006 - September 29, 2007 1,336,561 696 $84,354\n 4 September 30, 2007 - September 29, 2008 1,419,091 806 $97,979\n 5 September 30, 2008 - September 29, 2009 1,594,010 938 $115,285\n 6 September 30, 2009 - September 29, 2010 1,239,411 763 $96,301\n Total 7,703,240 4,602 $536,318\n\nTo achieve our audit objectives, we obtained and reviewed the contract, supporting\ndocuments, and applicable Federal laws and regulations. In addition, we selected and\ntested 23 task orders. See Appendix B for our scope and methodology and Appendix C\nfor our sampling methodology.\n\nRESULTS OF REVIEW\nBased on our tests, we determined that SSA received the contracted goods and\nservices and was generally satisfied with LM\xe2\x80\x99s work. Additionally, the related costs LM\ncharged to SSA generally adhered to the negotiated contract terms and applicable\nregulations.\n\nWe also found that SSA had implemented controls and practices to help ensure LM\nadhered to the contract terms. Based on our review of the contract, it appeared the\ncontract team, including the contracting officer\xe2\x80\x99s technical representative (COTR), 12\ncontracting officer (CO), task order manager, and work order manager, worked\ncooperatively and demonstrated professionalism and expertise in executing the\ncontract. We found that the COTR reviewed and certified invoices timely, which in turn,\nhelped SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Finance comply with the Prompt Payment Act. 13\n\n\n\n\n10\n A task order is issued for services placed against an established contract or with Government sources.\n11\n Full-time equivalency (FTE) is defined as one full-time employee working an entire fiscal year with no\nperiod of non-pay status, such as leave without pay, absent without leave, or suspension.\n12\n The COTR is an individual designated and authorized in writing by the CO to perform specific technical\nor administrative functions.\n13\n The Prompt Payment Act, requires that Federal agencies pay their bills timely, pay their interest\npenalties when payments are made late, and take discounts only when payments are made by the\ndiscount date. Pub. L. No. 97-177 \xc2\xa7 2-3, 96 Stat. 85-87 (1982).\n\x0cPage 4 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nWhile we recognize that SSA diligently managed and monitored the contract, we\nidentified a number of areas where the Agency can improve the administrative oversight\nand monitoring of the contract. Specifically, we found that SSA did not\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 always comply with suitability determination 14 policies and procedures;\n\xe2\x80\xa2 always comply with its systems\xe2\x80\x99 access policies and procedures; or\n\xe2\x80\xa2 apply Cost Accounting Standards (CAS), as required by the FAR. 15\n\nSSA DID NOT ALWAYS COMPLY WITH SUITABILITY DETERMINATION POLICIES\nAND PROCEDURES\n\nDuring our review of a sample of 45 LM employees and 38 LM subcontractors working\non the contract, we found 3 suitability determination issues.\n\n1. Some contractor personnel were not pre-screened before working on the project.\n2. Some suitability determinations were not performed every 5 years.\n3. Contractor personnel received suitability determinations under other SSA contracts\n without notifying SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Center for Personnel Security and Project Management\n (CPSPM). 16\n\nAccording to the contract, contractor personnel are subject to the same personnel\nsecurity and suitability requirements as SSA employees. 17 As testing in this area was\nconducted to analyze the strength of internal controls, the level of findings indicate\ninternal controls were not working as intended, and the weaknesses in this area require\nSSA management\xe2\x80\x99s attention.\n\n\n\n\n14\n Federal regulation defines the suitability determination as a decision by the Office of Personnel\nManagement or an agency with delegated authority that a person is suitable or is not suitable for\nemployment in covered positions in the Government or a specific Federal agency. 5 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 731.101(b).\n15\n FAR \xc2\xa7 30.101(a).\n16\n CPSPM manages SSA\xe2\x80\x99s nationwide programs for personnel security and suitability, national security,\nand drug testing for employees and contractors and SSA\xe2\x80\x99s nationwide worker\xe2\x80\x99s compensation program.\n17\n AWSSC, \xc2\xa7 B.10(a)(2)(vi)(C), Personnel Security, page B-46.\n\x0cPage 5 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nSome Contractor Personnel Were Not Pre-screened Before Working on the Project\n\nWe found three LM employees charged hours to the contract before they were pre-\nscreened or a suitability determination was initiated. 18 We also found two LM\nsubcontractors in temporary administrative positions who were not submitted for pre-\nscreening or suitability determinations before working on the contract. Per SSA, these\nemployees did not have access to sensitive information.\n\nAccording to the AWSSC Contract Administration Handbook, contractor personnel must\nbe authorized to enter SSA buildings, receive parking permits, and access SSA\ncomputer systems. This authorization may not be given until a favorable pre-screening\nfor suitability is completed. This pre-screening authorizes an individual to perform on\nthe contract pending a final suitability determination. 19 SSA policy states appropriate\nbackground investigations for all SSA appointees will be initiated on the day of, or\nbefore, appointment to Federal service as part of the entrance-on-duty process.\nAccording to SSA policy, investigations for contractors, volunteers, and special program\npersonnel will be initiated before the assignment and/or access to SSA systems,\ninformation, and facilities is approved. 20 Although these individuals were ultimately\nfound suitable, CPSPM staff stated that temporary personnel should have been pre-\nscreened before working on the contract. In addition, CPSPM stated it is responsible\nfor initiating a background investigation when a contractor submits the appropriate\npaperwork. However, CPSPM is not responsible for monitoring contract personnel\nworking on a contract.\n\nSSA should implement controls to ensure all contractor personnel (including\nsubcontractors) receive the appropriate pre-screening and suitability determinations\nbefore accessing SSA systems, information, and facilities.\n\nSome Suitability Determinations Were Not Performed Every 5 Years\n\nWe found five LM employees and one LM subcontractor who had suitability\ndeterminations that were over 5 years old. According to the contract, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Government\nmust clear each contractor employee, other than a guard, for suitability every five years.\nThe Government must clear each guard every two years.\xe2\x80\x9d 21 SSA staff stated that, in\nanticipation of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of the Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12\n(HSPD-12), the Agency did not resubmit several contractors for suitability\n\n\n\n18\n These three contractors were eventually found suitable to work on the AWSSC.\n19\n SSA, AWSSC - Contract Administration Handbook, supra at page 33.\n20\n SSA, Information Systems Security Handbook (ISSH), Appendix J: Personnel Security and Suitability\nProgram.\n21\n The original AWSSC C.3(w) Personnel Security Requirements Duration of Suitability Determination,\npage C-37.\n\x0cPage 6 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\ndeterminations at the end of 5 years. 22 Instead of performing suitability determinations\nusing previous requirements, SSA made a management decision to wait until the\nHSPD-12 investigations were performed, accept any risk involved, and not comply with\nthe contract. Consequently, these LM employees and the LM subcontractor could have\nbeen security risks until they were re-investigated.\n\nAccording to CPSPM staff, under HSPD-12 requirements, the initial suitability\ndeterminations for employees and contractors are considered valid indefinitely. CPSPM\nstaff further stated SSA should have modified the contracts that included a clause about\n5-year re-investigations to incorporate the new HSPD-12 requirements.\n\nIn December 2008, the Agency modified the contract to include HSPD-12 requirements\nand remove the statement that contractor employees must be cleared every 5 years\nand guards every 2 years. Although the Agency modified the contract, SSA had not\ncomplied with the original contract before the modification. As of the contract\nmodification date, SSA had not performed re-investigations for over 8 years, accepting\nthe risk that the five LM employees and one LM subcontractor became unsuitable since\ntheir last suitability determinations.\n\nIn its HSPD-12 implementation guide, OMB stated that the use of the standard\nidentification does not replace the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to follow existing laws,\nincluding laws and policies governing personnel security, acquisition, and information\ntechnology security. 23\n\nThe Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Title 5, \xc2\xa7 731.106 (d) states that agencies\nmay require incumbents of certain public trust positions to undergo periodic re-\ninvestigations. Executive Order 13488 24 requires a re-investigation of individuals in\npositions of public trust, including employees and contractor employees, to ensure they\nremain suitable for continued employment.\n\nSince SSA processes significant amounts of sensitive information, we believe the\nAgency should be a leader in ensuring the security of sensitive information; therefore,\nSSA should have performed the re-investigations as originally required and not\naccepted the risk. We recommend SSA continue to perform periodic suitability\ndeterminations, as appropriate.\n22\n HSPD-12 directs the implementation of a new standardized badging process, designed to enhance\nsecurity, reduce identity fraud, and protect the personal privacy of those issued Government identification.\nSSA began implementing the HSPD-12 program Agency-wide on October 27, 2005.\n23\n OMB,M-05-24, Implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)\n12 \xe2\x80\x93 Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors, page 1,\nAugust 5, 2005.\n24\n The Order, issued January 16, 2009, and published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2009,\nstates that \xe2\x80\x9cThis order is effective upon issuance and is applicable to individuals newly appointed to\nexcepted service positions or hired as contractor employees beginning 90 days from the effective date of\nthis order.\xe2\x80\x9d 74 Fed. Reg. 4111 (January 22, 2009).\n\x0cPage 7 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nThe following chart details the time lapse between the initial suitability determination\nand the modification date.\n\n Suitability Contract Time Between Determination\n Determination Modification and Modification\n Contractor 1 12/17/2001 12/19/2008 7 years\n Contractor 2 05/29/2001 12/19/2008 7 years, 7 months\n Contractor 3 03/18/1999 12/19/2008 9 years, 9 months\n Contractor 4 05/11/1999 12/19/2008 9 years, 7 months\n Contractor 5 05/25/2001 12/19/2008 7 years, 7 months\n Subcontractor 1 04/02/1999 12/19/2008 Re-investigation Not Completed\n\nContractor Personnel Received Suitability Determinations Under Other SSA Contracts\nWithout Notifying SSA\xe2\x80\x99s CPSPM\n\nWe found two LM employees and one LM subcontractor who worked on the contract\nand received suitability determinations under other SSA contracts without notifying\nSSA\xe2\x80\x99s CPSPM. In a previous audit, 25 we identified a similar issue where individuals\nreceived a suitability determination under one SSA contract then transferred to another\nSSA contract. We recommended SSA ensure that contractor personnel (including\nsubcontractors) working on that specific contract receive the appropriate suitability\ndeterminations even if the individuals were previously cleared under another contract.\nSSA agreed with our recommendation.\n\nWhen contracts have different suitability requirements, there is a risk that individuals\nassigned to one contract may not have the proper suitability determination to work\nunder another contract. For example, some contractors may only need physical access\nto SSA facilities, and some contractors may need both physical access and access to\nsensitive information. CPSPM personnel indicated they should have been notified when\nthese contractors began working on the contract.\n\nBased on our review of individuals receiving suitability determinations under this\ncontract, it appears that SSA is still having difficulty coordinating the suitability\ndeterminations when individuals were previously cleared under another SSA contract.\n\nTo address this issue, we reiterate our prior recommendation that SSA should ensure\nits contractor personnel (including subcontractors) receive the appropriate suitability\ndeterminations even for individuals previously cleared under another contract.\n\n\n\n\n25\n SSA OIG, The Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s Oversight of MDRC Contract No. SS00-06-60075\n(A-15-08-18010), December 22, 2008.\n\x0cPage 8 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nSSA DID NOT ALWAYS COMPLY WITH ITS SYSTEMS\xe2\x80\x99 ACCESS POLICIES AND\nPROCEDURES\n\nTo evaluate SSA\xe2\x80\x99s controls, we reviewed 45 individuals employed under this contract.\nWe found that SSA did not terminate the systems\xe2\x80\x99 access for four LM subcontractors\ntimely. We believe the level of findings indicate internal controls are not working as\nintended. Therefore, weaknesses in this area require management\xe2\x80\x99s attention. See\ntable below.\n\n Terminated or Separated LM Subcontractors\n Number of Days\n Terminated/Separated Date of Date Systems\xe2\x80\x99 Access\n Before Access\n LM Subcontractors Separation Was Terminated\n Was Terminated\n 1 10/02/2009 10/07/2009 5\n 2 01/26/2007 11/02/2007 280\n 3 12/27/2006 01/05/2007 9\n 4 09/23/2005 09/05/2006 347\n\nThe following represents the distribution of the 45 individuals from our sample that\nseparated or terminated under the contract.\n\n Contract Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total\n Number of separated\n employees 7 13 5 8 7 5 45\n\nThe ISSH states that security officers shall immediately deactivate the personal\nidentification numbers of employees and contractors who are inactive or have left the\nAgency. 26 If SSA does not disable their systems\xe2\x80\x99 access, these contractors could have\nunauthorized access to SSA resources and data.\n\nWe recommend that SSA terminate contractor personnel\xe2\x80\x99s (including subcontractors)\nsystems\xe2\x80\x99 access timely and in accordance with policies and procedures. After the\nconclusion of our fieldwork, we provided the Agency with the results of our testing. The\nAgency stated it had implemented corrective measures to ensure all departure notices\nare processed and accesses to systems terminated timely. Additionally, the Agency\nbegan using a checklist to ensure actions are completed when a contractor or\nsubcontractor leaves the Agency.\n\n\n\n\n26\n ISSH, Chapter 2, Systems Access Policy, Sections 2.2 and 2.3.1.\n\x0cPage 9 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nSSA DID NOT APPLY CAS, AS REQUIRED BY THE FAR\n\nWe found that SSA did not require that LM follow CAS, as required by the FAR. The\nFAR restates the requirement set forth in Public Law 100-679 that certain contractors\nand subcontractors comply with CAS and submit a CAS disclosure statement for their\ncost accounting practices. 27 The C.F.R. provides a list of contract types that are exempt\nfrom all CAS requirements.28 As an IDIQ and T&M contract, the contract was not\nexempt from the CAS requirement when it was awarded in September 2005.\n\nThe CAS disclosure statement would provide SSA a better understanding of the cost\naccounting practices the contractor intended to use, distinguish direct from indirect\ncosts, and identify the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s basis for allocating indirect costs to the contract.\nBecause SSA did not require that LM comply with CAS, we were unable to determine\nwhether LM properly allocated and charged costs to SSA. The Agency did not provide\nus a CAS disclosure statement until March 7, 2011. However, the CAS statement was\ndated June 18, 2007\xe2\x80\x942.5 years after the contract was awarded.\n\nThe FAR indicates that the CO shall not award a CAS-covered contract until the\ncognizant Federal agency official29 has made a written determination that a required\ndisclosure statement is adequate unless, in order to protect the Government\xe2\x80\x99s interests,\nthe agency head, on a delegable basis, authorizes award without obtaining\nsubmission. 30 SSA staff stated that, at the time of award, there was confusion\nGovernment-wide regarding commercial T&M contracts and CAS applicability. SSA\nbelieved that the LM contract was exempt from CAS because the contract was for the\nacquisition of commercial items. However, based on our review and understanding of\nthe FAR, we believe T&M contracts for the acquisition of commercial items were not\nexempt from CAS requirements until October 1, 2007.\n\nOn March 17, 2011, we briefed SSA management, and they agreed with the finding.\nSSA management acknowledged that they created this commercial T&M contract as an\nauthorized one-time deviation from the FAR with the expectation that the FAR would\nchange. The FAR did change in 2007 and specifically exempted T&M commercial\ncontracts from CAS. Because SSA believed the FAR was going to change, and the\nCAS board had indicated it was not appropriate to apply CAS to commercial item\ncontracts, the CO believed CAS did not apply to this hybrid T&M/labor hours\ncommercial contract.\n\n\n\n\n27\n FAR \xc2\xa7 30.101(a).\n28\n 48 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 9903.201-1(b).\n29\n Cognizant Federal agency official is the CO assigned by the Defense Contract Audit Agency to\nadminister the CAS for the contract.\n30\n FAR \xc2\xa7 30.202-6(b).\n\x0cPage 10 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nThe CO, in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the request for proposal,\nwas also more concerned with obtaining a vendor with superior technical merit than with\nmaking an award at the lowest overall price/cost to the Government.\nWe recommend that SSA ensure compliance with CAS and include CAS clauses in\nfuture contracts, as appropriate.\n\nCONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS\nWe found that SSA received the contracted goods and services and was generally\nsatisfied with LM\xe2\x80\x99s work. Additionally, the related costs LM charged to SSA generally\nadhered to the negotiated contract terms and applicable regulations. We also found\nthat SSA has implemented controls and practices to help ensure LM adhered to the\ncontract terms. While we recognize SSA diligently managed and monitored the\ncontract, we identified a number of areas where the Agency can improve. We\nrecommend SSA:\n\n1. Implement controls to ensure all contractor personnel (including subcontractors)\n receive the appropriate pre-screening and suitability determinations before\n accessing SSA systems, information, or facilities.\n\n2. Continue performing periodic suitability determinations, as appropriate.\n\n3. Ensure contractor personnel (including subcontractors) receive the appropriate\n suitability determinations even for individuals previously cleared under another\n contract.\n\n4. Terminate contractor personnel (including subcontractors) systems\xe2\x80\x99 access timely\n and in accordance with policies and procedures.\n\n5. Ensure compliance with CAS and include CAS clauses in future contracts, as\n appropriate.\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS\nSSA agreed with all our recommendations. The Agency\xe2\x80\x99s comments are included in\nAppendix E.\n\nOTHER MATTERS\nDuring our review, we indentified an additional area related to the contract\xe2\x80\x99s\nadministrative oversight and monitoring that we would like to bring to the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nattention.\n\nSSA paid the hourly rates for all labor performed on the contract that met the contract\xe2\x80\x99s\nlabor category qualifications. The contract had 36 labor categories with position\ndescriptions and corresponding hourly labor rates. LM was required to submit names\n\x0cPage 11 \xe2\x80\x93 The Commissioner\n\n\nand resumes to the COTR for review and approval when it proposed new candidates to\nwork on the contract. For COTR approval, a candidate must have met minimum\nrequirements for the proposed labor category.\n\nWe selected 16 resumes that applied to 15 labor categories. 31 We reviewed the\n16 resumes and applicable position descriptions for each contractor\xe2\x80\x99s labor category to\ndetermine whether the LM employees met the qualifications outlined in the position\ndescriptions and was in accordance with the work requested in the task order.\n\nWe found three instances where the documentation provided did not clearly support that\nthese LM employees met the qualifications based on position descriptions. For\nexample, we found one Senior Subject Matter Expert who did not appear to meet the\nqualifications required for her position. The Senior Subject Matter Expert is to be an\nexpert in highly specialized functional or technical areas related to application software\ndesign, development, testing, and maintenance support. However, we determined that\nthe LM employee\xe2\x80\x99s education and experience strictly related to Human Resources.\nAlthough LM billed SSA for a Senior Subject Matter Expert, this employee\xe2\x80\x99s education\nand experience best reflected skills and experience of a Principal Administrative\nSpecialist, resulting in a significant hourly rate variance of $27. We can provide\nadditional examples upon request.\n\nAlthough we did not consider this issue a finding, we suggest SSA review its contract\nadministration and monitoring process to ensure that only individuals who possess the\nappropriate skills and experience are approved for a specific labor category. Under the\ncontract, it was important that contractors and subcontractors were assigned accurate\nlabor categories to ensure SSA received the service it contracted for, at rates that\ncoincided with an individual\xe2\x80\x99s qualifications. In these economic times, SSA needs to\nensure it gets the best value for the goods and services provided.\n\n\n\n\n Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n\n\n\n\n31\n See Appendix D for all labor categories included in the AWSSC.\n\x0c Appendices\nAPPENDIX A \xe2\x80\x93 Acronyms\nAPPENDIX B \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\nAPPENDIX C \xe2\x80\x93 Sampling Methodology\nAPPENDIX D \xe2\x80\x93 Agency-wide Support Services Contract Labor Categories\nAPPENDIX E \xe2\x80\x93 Agency Comments\nAPPENDIX F \xe2\x80\x93 OIG Contacts\n\x0c Appendix A\n\nAcronyms\n AWSSC Agency-wide Support Services Contract\n CAS Cost Accounting Standards\n C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations\n CO Contracting Officer\n COTR Contracting Officer\xe2\x80\x99s Technical Representative\n CPSPM Center for Personnel Security and Project Management\n FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation\n FTE Full-Time Equivalent\n HSPD\xe2\x80\x9312 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12\n IDIQ Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity\n ISSH Information Systems Security Handbook\n LH Labor Hours\n LM Lockheed Martin Technology Commercial Corporation\n OIG Office of the Inspector General\n OMB Office of Management and Budget\n SSA Social Security Administration\n T&M Time-and-Materials\n\x0c Appendix B\n\nScope and Methodology\nTo accomplish our audit objectives, we\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Obtained and reviewed the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) Agency-wide\n Support Services Contract (AWSSC) with Lockheed Martin Technology Commercial\n Corporation (LM), Contract No. SS00-05-60011, and 40 of 98 contract modifications.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Selected and tested a sample of 23 of 271 task orders issued during the 6 years of\n the contract. See Sampling Methodology in Appendix C. We reviewed\n o associated invoices and supporting documents and\n o associated delivery and performance reports and supporting documents.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Selected a sample of 45 LM employees and all 1 38 LM subcontractors and tested\n the associated timesheets, suitability forms, security access, and 16 selected\n resumes with associated labor categories.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the applicable Federal acquisition regulations and laws.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed SSA\xe2\x80\x99s AWSSC Contract Administration Handbook, September 2009.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Contacted or interviewed key SSA and LM management and staff who executed and\n managed the contract, including the following.\n o SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Systems Contracting, Acquisition, Planning, and Programs\n Staff\n o SSA\xe2\x80\x99s Offices of Budget, Finance, and Management; Financial Policy and\n Operations; and Finance\n o SSA\xe2\x80\x99s contracting officer\xe2\x80\x99s technical representative\n o SSA\xe2\x80\x99s contracting officers\n o SSA\xe2\x80\x99s security staff\n o LM\xe2\x80\x99s Business Operations Manager\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Requested and reviewed documentation of other costs to test SSA\xe2\x80\x99s adherence to\n contract terms.\n\nIn addition to the contract-level review, we tested a portion of the contract to determine\nhow well SSA had executed and managed the contract in cost verification, timeliness,\nsecurity and accountability. Our testing focused on the 23 task orders that we selected\nfor our review. To select these task orders, we first selected all SSA divisions that used\nmore than $10 million of LM contractor services over the contract life. Then, we\nselected the largest task order issued by these divisions. (See Appendix C, Sampling\nMethodology.)\n\n1\n During the last reporting period of contract years 3 through 6, 38 subcontractors charged time to the\ncontract.\n\n\n B-1\n\x0cWe determined the computer-processed data were sufficiently reliable for our intended\nuse. We conducted tests to determine the completeness and accuracy of the data,\nwhich allowed us to assess the reliability of the data and achieve our audit objectives.\n\nWe performed our fieldwork at SSA Headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland, from\nJune 2010 through February 2011. We conducted this audit in accordance with\ngenerally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we\nplan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a\nreasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We\nbelieve the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n B-2\n\x0c Appendix C\n\nSampling Methodology\nThe Social Security Administration (SSA) administered its Agency-wide Service Support\nContract with Lockheed Martin Technology Commercial Corporation (LM) by issuing\n271 task orders, totaling approximately $536.3 million, for the life of the contract. There\nwere 49 SSA divisions associated with the 271 task orders for the 6 years of the\ncontract. For the review of contract deliverables and invoices, we selected 23 of\n271 task orders based on following criteria.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 First, we selected SSA divisions with total task order amounts greater than\n $10 million for the 6 years of the contract. This resulted in 23 SSA divisions\n selected.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Then, for each of these divisions, we selected the largest task order initiated during\n the life of the contract.\n\nOur review covered 47 percent of all divisions associated with the contract and\n17 percent of the total contract value. In addition, we used other sampling to test the\nfollowing areas.\n\nCost Verification\n\nTo determine whether SSA was charged and paid costs according to the contract terms,\nwe did the following.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 We randomly selected 45 LM employees and all 38 LM subcontractors who worked\n under the largest task order during the last reporting period of contract years 3\n through 6. We reviewed timesheets and compared them with the actual time\n charged to SSA in the associated invoices. In addition, we determined whether the\n correct labor rates were applied for each of the samples.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 From the sample above, we reviewed 16 resumes that fell within 15 labor\n categories.1 We selected 1 resume 2 from 14 labor categories and 2 from the\n remaining category. We compared the resumes to the position descriptions for\n which they were billed. We then determined whether the individuals were properly\n assigned to the labor categories for which they were being billed.\n\n\n\n\n1\n We selected the resumes from contract years 5 and 6 of the same sample.\n2\n We reviewed two resumes for the Principal Subject Matter Expert. See Appendix D for all labor\ncategories.\n\n\n C-1\n\x0c\xe2\x80\xa2 We selected all invoices for contract years 3 through 6. For costs other than labor,\n we reviewed the monthly invoices and compared them with the contractor terms and\n applicable Federal acquisition regulations to determine whether these costs were\n billed and charged to SSA in compliance with such terms and regulations.\n\nTimeliness\n\nTo determine whether contract deliverables and payments were made timely according\nto the contract, we\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed the invoices associated with the 23 selected task orders to determine\n the timeliness of invoices and payments and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 reviewed and compared each of the 23 selected task orders with the\n corresponding Task Order Closeout Report.\n\nSecurity\n\nTo determine whether the LM employees and subcontractors met contract security\nrequirements, we tested the same sample of 45 LM employees and all 38 LM\nsubcontractors as described above under Cost Verification and determined whether the\nsuitability and pre-screening process was completed timely.\n\nIn addition, we randomly selected and tested 45 of the 1,582 terminated or separated\nLM employees and LM subcontractors to determine whether their access to SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\ninformation systems was removed timely.\n\nAccountability\n\nFor all samples reviewed, we also examined whether there was noncompliance with\ncontract terms by either SSA or LM.\n\n\n\n\n C-2\n\x0c Appendix D\n\n Agency-wide Support Services Contract\n Labor Categories\nProgram Director* Principal Administrative Specialist\nSenior Project Manager* Senior Administrative Specialist*\nProject Manager* Administrative Specialist*\nPrincipal Business/Architectural Expert Associate Administrative Specialist\nBusiness Operations Manager Entry Level Administrative Specialist\nPrincipal Computer Systems Analysts/Programmer* Principal Web Technology Specialist*\nSenior Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer* Senior Web Technology Specialist\nComputer Systems Analyst/Programmer* Web Technology Specialist\nAssociate Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer Associate Web Technology Specialist\nEntry Level Computer Systems Analyst/Programmer Senior Database Management Specialist\nPrincipal Information Technology Specialist* Database Management Specialist\nSenior Information Technology Specialist Associate Database Management Specialist\nInformation Technology Specialist Enterprise Information Technology Specialist\nAssociate Information Technology Specialist Lead Information Technology Specialist*\nEntry Level Information Technology Specialist Enterprise Subject Matter Expert\nPrincipal Subject Matter Expert* Lead Subject Matter Expert*\nSenior Subject Matter Expert* Lead Web Technology Specialist\nSubject Matter Expert* Principal Database Management Specialist\n\n\n * Positions in bold were included in our sample of labor categories compared to\n employee resumes.\n\x0c Appendix E\n\nAgency Comments\n\x0c SOCIAL SECURITY\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\n\nDate: September 28, 2011 Refer To: S1J-3\n\nTo: Patrick P. O\xe2\x80\x99Carroll, Jr.\n Inspector General\n\nFrom: Dean S. Landis /s/\n Deputy Chief of Staff\n\nSubject: Office of the Inspector General Draft Report, \xe2\x80\x9cThe Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s Agency-\n wide Support Services Contract with Lockheed Martin\xe2\x80\x9d (A-14-10-11004)--INFORMATION\n\n\n Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. Please see our attached comments.\n\n Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. You may direct staff inquiries to\n Frances Cord at (410) 966-5787.\n\n Attachment\n\n\n\n\n E-1\n\x0cCOMMENTS ON THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) DRAFT\nREPORT, \xe2\x80\x9cTHE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION\xe2\x80\x99S AGENCY-WIDE\nSUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACT WITH LOCKHEED MARTIN\xe2\x80\x9d\n(A-14-10-11004)\n\nCOMMENT TO OTHER MATTERS\n\nPage 11, last paragraph reads:\n\n\xe2\x80\x9c\xe2\x80\xa6we suggest SSA review its contract administration and monitoring process to ensure that only\nindividuals who possess the appropriate skills and experience are approved for a specific labor\ncategory.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nComment\n\nWe agree. We will place a greater emphasis on the need to document exceptions made to labor\ncategory qualification.\n\nRESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nRecommendation 1\n\nImplement controls to ensure all contractor personnel (including subcontractors) receive the\nappropriate pre-screening and suitability determinations before accessing SSA systems,\ninformation, or facilities.\n\nResponse\n\nWe agree. Our Information Technology Support Services Contract, the successor of the Agency-\nwide Support Services Contract, requires us to pre-screen all contractors before working on a\ncontract.\n\nRecommendation 2\n\nContinue performing periodic suitability determinations, as appropriate.\n\nResponse\n\nWe agree. Once the Office of Personnel Management issues guidance on Executive Order\n13488 Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and\nReinvestigating Individuals in Positions of Public Trust, we will implement the five-year review\npolicy.\n\n\n\n\n E-2\n\x0cRecommendation 3\n\nEnsure contractor personnel (including subcontractors) receive the appropriate suitability\ndeterminations even for individuals previously cleared under another contract.\n\nResponse\n\nWe agree.\n\nRecommendation 4\n\nTerminate contractor personnel\xe2\x80\x99s (including subcontractors) systems\xe2\x80\x99 access timely and in\naccordance with policies and procedures.\n\nResponse\n\nWe agree.\n\nRecommendation 5\n\nEnsure compliance with Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and include CAS clauses in future\ncontracts, as appropriate.\n\nResponse\n\nWe agree. We note that because the Federal Acquisition Regulation changed subsequent to the\naward of the Lockheed Martin contract, CAS standards are not applicable to this contract.\n\n\n\n\n E-3\n\x0c Appendix F\n\nOIG Contacts\n Brian Karpe, Director, Information Technology Audit Division\n\n Grace Chi, Audit Manager\n\nFor additional copies of this report, please visit our Website at http://oig.ssa.gov/ or\ncontact the Office of the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s Public Affairs Staff Assistant at\n(410) 965-4518. Refer to Common Identification Number A-14-10-11004.\n\x0c DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE\n\nCommissioner of Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means\nChief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security\nMajority and Minority Staff Director, Subcommittee on Social Security\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on the Budget, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Oversight and Government\nReform\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of\nRepresentatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,\nEducation and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations,\n House of Representatives\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human\nServices, Education and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Finance\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Social Security Pensions\nand Family Policy\nChairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Special Committee on Aging\nSocial Security Advisory Board\n\x0c Overview of the Office of the Inspector General\nThe Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is comprised of an Office of Audit (OA), Office of Investigations\n(OI), Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG), Office of External Relations (OER), and Office of\nTechnology and Resource Management (OTRM). To ensure compliance with policies and procedures, internal\ncontrols, and professional standards, the OIG also has a comprehensive Professional Responsibility and Quality\nAssurance program.\n Office of Audit\nOA conducts financial and performance audits of the Social Security Administration\xe2\x80\x99s (SSA) programs and\noperations and makes recommendations to ensure program objectives are achieved effectively and efficiently.\nFinancial audits assess whether SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements fairly present SSA\xe2\x80\x99s financial position, results of\noperations, and cash flow. Performance audits review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of SSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nprograms and operations. OA also conducts short-term management reviews and program evaluations on issues\nof concern to SSA, Congress, and the general public.\n Office of Investigations\nOI conducts investigations related to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in SSA programs and operations.\nThis includes wrongdoing by applicants, beneficiaries, contractors, third parties, or SSA employees performing\ntheir official duties. This office serves as liaison to the Department of Justice on all matters relating to the\ninvestigation of SSA programs and personnel. OI also conducts joint investigations with other Federal, State,\nand local law enforcement agencies.\n Office of the Counsel to the Inspector General\nOCIG provides independent legal advice and counsel to the IG on various matters, including statutes,\nregulations, legislation, and policy directives. OCIG also advises the IG on investigative procedures and\ntechniques, as well as on legal implications and conclusions to be drawn from audit and investigative material.\nAlso, OCIG administers the Civil Monetary Penalty program.\n Office of External Relations\nOER manages OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the principal advisor on news releases\nand in providing information to the various news reporting services. OER develops OIG\xe2\x80\x99s media and public\ninformation policies, directs OIG\xe2\x80\x99s external and public affairs programs, and serves as the primary contact for\nthose seeking information about OIG. OER prepares OIG publications, speeches, and presentations to internal\nand external organizations, and responds to Congressional correspondence.\n Office of Technology and Resource Management\nOTRM supports OIG by providing information management and systems security. OTRM also coordinates\nOIG\xe2\x80\x99s budget, procurement, telecommunications, facilities, and human resources. In addition, OTRM is the\nfocal point for OIG\xe2\x80\x99s strategic planning function, and the development and monitoring of performance\nmeasures. In addition, OTRM receives and assigns for action allegations of criminal and administrative\nviolations of Social Security laws, identifies fugitives receiving benefit payments from SSA, and provides\ntechnological assistance to investigations.\n\x0c'


text:
Subjekty obchodního práva - podnikatel - další subjekty - non-subjekty - nová úprava ppt stáhnout
 Subjekty obchodního práva - podnikatel - další subjekty - non-subjekty - nová úprava 12. 10. 2012.
 Prezentace na téma: "Subjekty obchodního práva - podnikatel - další subjekty - non-subjekty - nová úprava 12. 10. 2012."— Transkript prezentace:
 Podnikatel Tuzemská osoba Zahraniční osoba § 2 odst. 2 obch. zák. § 21 nsl. obch. zák. osoba zapsaná v obchodním rejstříku osoba podnikající na základě živnostenského oprávnění osoba podnikající na základě jiného než živnostenského oprávnění podle zvláštních předpisů osoba provozující zemědělskou výrobu a zapsaná do evidence podle zvláštního předpisu písm. a) písm. b) písm. c) písm. d)
 Podnikatel Tuzemská osoba Zahraniční osoba obchodní společnosti, družstva – dle obch.zák., další osoby, které se musí zapsat do OR dle zvl. zák. – např. státní podnik, nebo které se samy zapíší do OR (fyz.osoby) osoby, které podnikají podle živnostenského oprávnění – podle živn. zákona (živn. list, koncesní listina) osoby vyňaté z působn.živn.zákona – např. advokáti, notáři, auditoři, lékaři, veterinární lékaři, daňoví poradci, aj. – dle zvl. zák. osoby provozující zemědělskou výrobu – podle zák.o zemědělství (§ 2e-h) písm. a) § 2 odst. 2 obch. zák. písm. b) písm. c) písm. d)
 Podnikání § 2 odst.1 obch. zák. soustavná činnost prováděná samostatně podnikatelem vlastním jménem na vlastní odpovědnost za účelem dosažení zisku
 Podnikatel - osoba zapsaná v obch. rejstříku podniká nepodniká – jiný účel = tzv. fiktivní podnikatel (podnikatel podle formy) společnost s ručením omezeným akciová společnost družstvo § 56 odst.1 § 221 odst.1 § 2 odst. 2 písm. a) obch. zák. § 2 odst. 1 obch. zák.
 Podnikatel § 2 odst. 2 obch. zák. : Podnikatelem podle tohoto zákona je: a) osoba zapsaná v obchodním rejstříku, b) osoba, která podniká na základě živnostenského oprávnění, c) osoba, která podniká na základě jiného než živnostenského oprávnění podle zvláštních předpisů, d) osoba, která provozuje zemědělskou výrobu a je zapsána do evidence podle zvláštního předpisu. Podnikatel § 420 – 421 nového obč. zák.: § 420 (1) Kdo samostatně vykonává na vlastní účet a odpovědnost výdělečnou činnost živnostenským nebo obdobným způsobem se záměrem činit tak soustavně za účelem dosažení zisku, je považován se zřetelem k této činnosti za podnikatele. (2) Pro účely ochrany spotřebitele a pro účely § 1963 (pozn.: čas plnění) se za podnikatele považuje také každá osoba, která uzavírá smlouvy související s vlastní obchodní, výrobní nebo obdobnou činností či při samostatném výkonu svého povolání, popřípadě osoba, která jedná jménem nebo na účet podnikatele. § 421 (1) Za podnikatele se považuje osoba zapsaná v obchodním rejstříku. Za jakých podmínek se osoby zapisují do obchodního rejstříku, stanoví jiný zákon. (2) Má se za to, že podnikatelem je osoba, která má k podnikání živnostenské nebo jiné oprávnění podle jiného zákona.
 § 3024 NOZ (1) Za zahraniční osobu se považuje fyzická osoba s bydlištěm nebo právnická osoba se sídlem mimo území České republiky. (2) Způsobilost nabývat práva a zavazovat se k povinnostem, kterou má jiná než fyzická zahraniční osoba podle právního řádu, podle něhož byla založena, jí náleží rovněž v oblasti českého právního řádu. Právním řádem, podle něhož byla tato osoba založena, se řídí i její vnitřní právní poměry a ručení jejích členů nebo společníků za její dluhy. § 21 obch. zák. (1) Zahraniční osoby mohou podnikat na území České republiky za stejných podmínek a ve stejném rozsahu jako české osoby, pokud ze zákona nevyplývá něco jiného. (2) Zahraniční osobou se pro účely tohoto zákona rozumí fyzická osoba s bydlištěm nebo právnická osoba se sídlem mimo území České republiky. Českou právnickou osobou pro účely tohoto zákona se rozumí právnická osoba se sídlem na území České republiky. (3) Podnikáním zahraniční osoby na území České republiky se rozumí pro účely tohoto zákona podnikání této osoby, má-li podnik nebo jeho organizační složku umístěnou na území České republiky. (4) Oprávnění zahraniční osoby podnikat na území České republiky vzniká ke dni zápisu této osoby, popřípadě organizační složky jejího podniku, v rozsahu předmětu podnikání zapsaném do obchodního rejstříku. Návrh na zápis podává zahraniční osoba. dále § 22 - § 26 obch. zák.
 Další subjekty obchodního práva § 4 obch.zák. Subjekty soutěžního práva soutěžitelé spotřebitelé právnické osoby oprávněné hájit zájmy soutěžitelů nebo spotřebitelů Subjekty závazkových vztahů (podle druhů obchodů) stát/ samosprávná územní jednotka, jde-li o zabezpečování veřejných potřeb jakékoliv subjekty, které povinně vstupují do vyjme- novaných obchodně- právních vztahů relativní obchody typové obchody fakultativní obchody jakékoliv subjekty, které dobrovolně vstupují do obchodně- právních vztahů § 44 a násl. § 261 a násl. § 261 odst.2 § 261 odst.3§ 262 § 44 odst.1 a § 53 § 54 odst.1 5 zákazníci
 Subjekty vnitřních vztahů v obchodních společnostech, družstvu zakladatelé obchodních společností, družstev členové statutárních orgánů obchodních společností, družstev likvidátoři obchodních společností, družstev společníci v obchodních společnostech, členové v družstvech prokuristé § 261 odst.3, § 70 a násl., § 14
 Subjekty soutěžního práva: § soutěžitelé - zákazníci - právnické osoby oprávněné hájit zájmy soutěžitelů nebo zákazníků Další subjekty obchodního práva podle NOZ : Subjekty závazkových vztahů: § 15 – 22 - fyzické osoby - právnické osoby - stát - podnikatelé - spotřebitelé Subjekty vnitřních vztahů ve společnostech a družstvech: /Hlava I ZOK/ - zakladatelé - společníci / členové družstva - členové statutárních orgánů + § 161 – 167 NOZ - likvidátoři § 189 – 209 NOZ - prokuristé § 450 – 456 NOZ
 Negativní vymezení subjektů obchodního práva podnik je objektem právních vztahů; věc hromadná § 5 obch.zák. (obchodní) firma označení podnikatele § 8 obch.zák. koncern či holding ekonomické seskupení podnikatelů bez právní subjektivity § 66a obch.zák. odštěpný závod vnitřní jednotka v rámci podniku podnikatele § 7 obch.zák. tichá společnost smluvní typ (nevzniká právnická osoba) § 673 nsl. obch.zák. sdružení definice právnické osoby, speciální právnické osoby nebo smluvní typ (smlouva o sdružení) obč.zák.
 Obch. zák. (nyní) § 5: podnik § 7: odštěpný závod § : obchodní firma § 66a: koncern/holding § : tiché společenství /§ 829 obč.z./ sdružení NOZ (od r. 2014) § 502: obchodní závod § 503/2: odštěpný závod § : obchodní firma /§ 79 – 81 ZOK/ koncern § : tichá společnost § : společnost
 Stáhnout ppt "Subjekty obchodního práva - podnikatel - další subjekty - non-subjekty - nová úprava 12. 10. 2012."
 Podobné prezentace Přehled subjektů obchodního práva JUDr. Dana Ondrejová, Ph.D.