Article

2007-11-01 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-11-01 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views ] Top

#1 Collectively, higher numbers, better quality and more clout within the Army's contracting ranks are expected to reduce opportunities for fraud, waste and abuse

Bullshit flag down. The execution of US Government contracts is the responsibility of a US Government Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). This can be a military officer or US Government civilian employee. Elevating contractors to General officer rank is a "screw-up and move-up" throw more money at the problem - government solution. It's a recipe for further corruption and post-retirement boondoggles. Competent Government and Military COR's and senior level Army officers who have their collective heads in the contracting game and monitor what is going on with governement contract within their areas of responsibility is the way ahead. Elevating contractors to GO level salaries is a mistake. Many are already there.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-11-01 02:11|| 2007-11-01 02:11|| Front Page Top

#2 The execution of US Government contracts is the responsibility of a US Government Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

Almost, but not quite, true. The COR represents the Contracting Officer and in practice does oversee execution of the contracts. But legal responsibility remains with the CO.

From the Army's site:

What is a COR?
A Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) is a Government official appointed in writing by the contracting officer who provides technical direction, clarification and guidance with respect to the contract specifications and statement of work.

The COR is the technical liaison between the contractor and the contracting officer and is responsible for ensuring satisfactory performance and timely delivery as set forth in the contract. The COR is appointed by a COR Appointment letter which sets out roles, responsibilities, limitations and duties from the Contracting Officer. (emphasis added)

Posted by lotp 2007-11-01 07:39|| 2007-11-01 07:39|| Front Page Top

#3 And from the Army's COR desk guide:

In short, contracting officer representatives (COR) are qualified individuals appointed by
the Contracting officer (KO) to assist in the technical monitoring or administration of a contract.
Although CORs can be employed on all types of contracts, they are extremely useful in the more
complex services, supply, and/or construction contracts. However, you must keep in mind that
the use of CORs does not alleviate the need for a full time contracting professional to monitor contract surveillance and manage the contract management team.

The reason this distinction matters is that the contracting officer has legal responsibility that the COR doesn't. Only the contracting officer can authorize payment to contractors, for instance. The COR advises and, in an award fee contract has a strong influence, re: payment. But the buck stops with the KO him/herself.

Posted by lotp 2007-11-01 07:46|| 2007-11-01 07:46|| Front Page Top

#4 When someone screws up, instead of hanging the bastard as an clear public example to others, the first impulse in the government is to make more rules and regulations. The second impulse is to demand more people. If they did the hanging first, you'd find a much reduced need to propagate new paper and expand personnel empires. However, that takes leadership, not management.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-11-01 09:14|| 2007-11-01 09:14|| Front Page Top

#5 Lotp, you are indeed correct. However, the COR is the first government representative to have eyes on target and, as you say advise the contracting officer and the government chain of command. It has been my experience that the breakdown of individual contracts is generally at the COR level. As you are obviously aready aware, the CO can have numerous on-going contracts to oversee (thru his COR's). Yes, bottom line, if you take it up the chain of command the CO and eventually the SECAR are both responsible.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-11-01 15:04|| 2007-11-01 15:04|| Front Page Top

#6 Agreed, Besoeker. Agreed. And the CORs need to be competant!

Back in my days as a contractor project & then program manager, I often pulled my hair out over COR directions that were a) technically meaningless or counter-productive, b) contradictory to the intent of the contract as expressed many times in the runup to the formal source selection or c) flat out contradictory to the contract itself.

Only in case c) was there much recourse. It's a fine line to walk in trying to educate the rest of the govt leadership on advanced technology issues without so totally pissing off the COR that the whole contract goes south in a hurry.

And people wonder why I have ... silver ... hair early.

Posted by lotp 2007-11-01 15:09|| 2007-11-01 15:09|| Front Page Top

23:59 JAB
23:15 ed
23:13 Old Patriot
22:55 Icerigger
22:53 Thromotle Hapsburg8103
22:51 Red Dawg
22:08 Icerigger
22:03 Frank G
22:01 Zenster
21:46 Jan
21:38 trailing wife
21:34 DarthVader
21:32 trailing wife
21:30 trailing wife
21:11 Icerigger
21:07 Procopius2k
20:59 SteveS
20:58 TomAnon
20:58 Frank G
20:54 Whiskey Mike
20:53 Alaska Paul
20:47 Frank G
20:39 trailing wife
20:39 Alistaire Spains7209