A
s an intern from U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) – National Capital lRegion, I had the unique
experience of accompanying my agency’s Executive Director, Michael R. Hutchi- son, and Gregory Moore, Kuwait/ Qatar Reachback Branch Chief for ACC – Rock Island, IL, on a two- week developmental assignment to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait,
and Vicenza,
Italy. Although my assignment was only 12 days long, I learned impor- tant lessons that would have taken years to understand had I not spent time OCONUS, especially in a contin- gency environment.
Three especially valuable observa- tions, related to both the pre-award and post-award phases
of the acquisition
cycle, stand out from my assignment. These “lessons learned” represent three different facets of contracting, the understanding of which is essential to our continuous development as acquisi- tion professionals.
First, acquisition professionals must work with the requiring activity to bet- ter define the contract
requirements.
Second, we must acknowledge the importance of contracting officer’s representatives (CORs). Finally, we must understand the significance of collaboration among the requiring activity, contracting office, and contrac- tor. Increased focus and development in these areas will result in higher-quality contract performance, at a lower price to the government.
THE COR’S RESPONSIBILITIES
The importance of contracting officer’s representatives (CORs) in accurately monitoring contractor performance and evaluating contractors fairly is often overlooked. Here, SFC Paul Carroll (left), Service Contracts Manager for the Directorate of Resource Management, 196th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, South Dakota Army National Guard, and MSG Richard Albertson, COR with the 196th, talk with an Afghan contractor about forklift services and maintenance Dec. 16, 2010, at Camp Phoenix in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Photo by CPT Anthony Deiss.)
While on assignment, I attended a meet- ing regarding a contract that had been in place for a significant period of time but was having “scope” issues. At
this
meeting, the meanings of some of the key terms, as written in the PWS, were debated for nearly an hour. Since the PWS was not clearly written initially, the government had been unable to reach a consensus on what work was within or outside its scope. When the contractor argued that work was outside the scope of the contract, the government spent weeks debating whether or not the contractor was correct.
Mission progress essentially stopped until a resolution was reached. Had the PWS been written clearly in the pre-award phase, this meeting of 20-plus people (from quality assurance personnel, to contract
specialists, to legal could have been avoided.
COR’S CRITICAL ROLE In order for the government to conduct post-award actions effectively, it must first realize the importance of CORs. While the COR has many different responsi- bilities, his or her primary function is
A second COR giving feedback about a contractor’s performance considered the fact that a contractor had attended all the mandatory meetings as a strength. The contractor should not have received any additional award fee for this, how- ever, because attendance at meetings
CLEAR REQUIREMENTS Writing encompassing requirements documents, especially the Performance Work Statement (PWS), gives a clear pic- ture of what the government requires and allows contractors to adequately prepare to accomplish the government’s goals. Failure to properly establish the govern- ment’s requirements, however, will lead to problems down the line.
to ensure that the government is receiv- ing the goods and services for which it
is paying. Unfortunately, the COR’s
importance is often overlooked. Contrary to DoD policy, a number of service con- tracts do not have CORs.
Many CORs, because of other pressing duties in a contingency environment, are compelled to treat their COR roles as a secondary duty. This relegation of COR duties to a place of secondary importance was evident in one meeting where we learned that a previous COR had rarely been to a work site and had not kept any records of progress. There had been issues with contractor performance, but when it came time to determine what had gone wrong, it was impossible to assign respon- sibility to anyone because there was no documentation.
counsel)
When it comes to establishing award fees, the COR provides the required feedback to determine the appropriate fee amount. In a Performance Evaluation Board meet- ing, we learned that a COR had been working for about a month but had never conducted an audit because he did not feel he had the proper training. As a result, the government was unable to evaluate the contractor on its performance under certain task areas of the contract.
ASC.ARMY.MIL
129
COMMENTARY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176
