You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Army Needs More Contracting Personnel
2007-11-01
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army, stung by a contracting fraud scandal that has generated more than 80 criminal investigations, needs 1,400 more personnel to deal with the demands of supplying troops in combat, said U.S. officials familiar with a report by federal procurement experts.

The group's report, to be released Thursday, also calls for creating general officer positions within the Army's contracting work force - a move to attract talented men and women to a field most would otherwise avoid because of dim prospects for career advancement.

Collectively, higher numbers, better quality and more clout within the Army's contracting ranks are expected to reduce opportunities for fraud, waste and abuse as tens of billions of dollars continue to be spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials told The Associated Press. They described the report on condition of anonymity because it has not been released.

The report, ``Urgent Reform Required: Army Expeditionary Contracting,'' proposes adding 400 military and 1,000 civilian personnel with contract-signing authority to an Army contracting work force that now has just over 10,000 people.

Additionally, the panel, chaired by former Pentagon acquisition chief Jacques Gansler, recommends giving the Defense Contract Management Agency several hundred more personnel to exercise greater oversight of contracts awarded overseas. The U.S. officials did not say what the costs of adding more people would be.

Established in August by Army Secretary Pete Geren, the Gansler panel was given a broad mandate to examine how the military branch acquires the gear and services it needs each year to operate.

Since 2001, provisional offices have spring up in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Qatar and other locations to buy items such as bottled water, laundry services, barracks, food, transportation, and warehouse services. But in certain places, such as Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, there were too few qualified people, too little oversight, high staff turnover, and poor record-keeping. In the midst of those shortcomings came a huge flow of dollars for the war, creating an environment ripe for misconduct and inefficiency.

A separate Army task force was assigned to examine a random sampling of the 6,000 contracts worth nearly $2.8 billion issued since 2003 by the Kuwait office in a search for rigged awards and sloppy work. That review is to be completed by the end of the year.
Posted by:Steve White

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

00:00