BowtechDan

Don't forget handling govt furnished property if there is any.

52.246-2 Inspection of Supplies (if applicable): (d) If the Government performs inspection or test on the premises of the Contractor or a subcontractor, the Contractor shall furnish, and shall require subcontractors to furnish, at no increase in contract price, all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safe and convenient performance of these duties.

I've heard a few discussions concerning this topic since COVID-19 teleworking began. What does the contract say? If the PC was incidental, then it technically should have stayed on post. I'm assuming the contractor was liable for the incidental GP? Not sure a local unit "Property Pass" takes precedence over the FAR unless it was addressed in the contract. I know one organization in the USAF did a waiver to allow contractors to take PC's off base as and still keep them as "incidental". Either way.....good question for legal.

I've seen and heard the term "AOR" used for Agreements Officer Representative on OTA's and TIA's, but I don't believe the regs and instructions for appointments have caught up to agreements yet (at least in DoD). JMO, but the terms mean the same, but folks will say otherwise in order to bypass the PIEE JAM/SPM requirements.

You might try Army Contracting Command. They deal with many service contracts.

If 1102's knew what a 1910 and 1103 should be doing, that would be a great start.

Has anyone explained the issue to them? Maybe COMM needs to be aware it's a requirement.

Not only the time, but the statement of "all work done" and "all hospital policies & requirements were met". Yikes.

GAR and CARP have been labeled as trash-fish by many. Just sayin.

Karla, on a contract such as LOGCAP, there may be as many as 60-70 COR's. If the contract has multiple, different services where one can't be a technical expert on everything (i.e. construction, power generation, DFAC's, vehicle maintenance, etc), then appointing several CORs are acceptable. As stated, multiple locations are a factor too. From a management standpoint, I've seen where the multiple CORs funnel their activities / surveillance results into one Lead COR.

I've seen a few in DoD. I think it really comes down to what their roles and responsibilities are in the appointment letter. A COR is a representative of the KO and performs the functions needed. If the appointee is going to work a contract and face contractor's, they "should" have the same type training IMO. But offices like to change the person's title as something different than "COR" to bypass the DoDI minimum training and use of CORT. - Technical Monitor (TM) - Technical Inspector (TI) - Quality Assurance Representative/Specialist (QAR/QAS) - Property Administrator (PA)

Robert, (Assuming here you are a contractor) Is the govt paying you for the vehicles, or are you buying the vehicles to perform a service? If the govt is paying you to get vehicles to perform a service, those vehicles "normally" become GFP when you procure them, not wait until the end of the contract. Being a cost-type contract, 52.245-1 is "supposed" to be on the contract. The contractor would then maintain stewardship of those vehicles while the govt has title. The govt is normally self-insured and we don't pay the added expense for insurance. To mitigate that, the -1 clause assumes the contractor will take care of the property IAW an approved Property Management System. And normally, the contractor isn't held liable for damage.......normally. You should contact the contracting officer.

True. But the OP did state: "They found a contract that had a few performance issues written up by the COR and were not happy that the contract did not provide for deducts for these deficiencies. "

52.246-4 Inspection of Services gives you the authority to make deductions: (e) If any of the services do not conform with contract requirements, the Government may require the Contractor to perform the services again in conformity with contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount. When the defects in services cannot be corrected by reperformance, the Government may -- (1) Require the Contractor to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to contract requirements; and (2) Reduce the contract price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed.

On the previous audits you mentioned. what did they keep as audit evidence? Good notes? Print screen? Thank you.