Can a Contracting Officer also be the COTR/COR?

[Prezmil2020]

Good Evening,

Our office is debating the following:

It is good practice to have the Requesting Activity provide the COR; however, what if nobody took the required course(s) to be certified as the COR? Can the Contracting Officer, even though he/she did not take the required COR training courses, be a COR? I was told that a Contracting Officer does not have to take the specific COR courses to be a COR because the Contracting Officer is already warranted and took other acquistion courses and should know the work to be performed as a COR. I have not found any regulation from DAU, FAI, or OFPP to substantiate this. It makes sense for the Contracting Officer to not be the COR but I was hoping if anyone can shed some light on this. Thanks in advance.

Prezmil2020

[Guest carl r culham]

Suggest you start here to answer your own question. FAR Part 2 - Definitions...which reads-

?Contracting officer? means a person with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. The term includes certain authorized representatives of the contracting officer acting within the limits of their authority as delegated by the contracting officer. ?Administrative contracting officer (ACO)? refers to a contracting officer who is administering contracts. ?Termination contracting officer (TCO)? refers to a contracting officer who is settling terminated contracts. A single contracting officer may be responsible for duties in any or all of these areas. Reference in this regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1) to administrative contracting officer or termination contracting officer does not?

(1) Require that a duty be performed at a particular office or activity; or

(2) Restrict in any way a contracting officer in the performance of any duty properly assigned.

[joel hoffman]

Nevermind

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Good Evening,

Our office is debating the following:

It is good practice to have the Requesting Activity provide the COR; however, what if nobody took the required course(s) to be certified as the COR? Can the Contracting Officer, even though he/she did not take the required COR training courses, be a COR? I was told that a Contracting Officer does not have to take the specific COR courses to be a COR because the Contracting Officer is already warranted and took other acquistion courses and should know the work to be performed as a COR. I have not found any regulation from DAU, FAI, or OFPP to substantiate this. It makes sense for the Contracting Officer to not be the COR but I was hoping if anyone can shed some light on this.

I find it pretty amusing that you are debating whether a CO can be his or her own representative. The COR represents the CO. According to my dictionary, represent means "to be entitled or appointed to act or speak for someone." It seems to me pretty obvious that a CO can represent himself. COR training is designed to teach non-COs how to represent a CO. Assuming that a CO knows how to do his or her job, why would he or she need training about how to represent himself when he is himself?

It's wonderful what contracting people will spend their time wondering about. Honestly.

Of course, whether a CO should represent himself is a different issue. A person can represent himself in court, but that doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.

[Navy_Contracting_4]

I find it pretty amusing that you are debating whether a CO can be his or her own representative. The COR represents the CO. According to my dictionary, represent means "to be entitled or appointed to act or speak for someone." It seems to me pretty obvious that a CO can represent himself. COR training is designed to teach non-COs how to represent a CO. Assuming that a CO knows how to do his or her job, why would he or she need training about how to represent himself when he is himself?

It's wonderful what contracting people will spend their time wondering about. Honestly.

Of course, whether a CO should represent himself is a different issue. A person can represent himself in court, but that doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do.

I don't know where Prezmil2020 works, but if it's in DoD, it's possible that he has read DFARS PGI 201.602-2(i)(A), which states "For contract actions for services awarded by a DoD component or by any other Federal agency on behalf of DoD, contracting officers shall designate a properly trained COR in writing before award."

Now, as we all know from reading the recent shall/must/will thread, "shall" indicates that the action is mandatory. It is pretty obvious that a CO can represent himself, but DFARS PGI requires, nonetheless, that the CO "designate a properly trained COR in writing before award." Most DoD activities have a specified COR training course, or courses, that must be completed in order for a COR to be considered "properly trained," and if the CO hasn't completed the specified training course(s), some might argue that the CO doesn't meet the definition of "properly trained," and isn't allowed to designate him/herself. Thus, the question. I expect others may have engaged in the same semantic line of inquiry, so what's the harm in posting it here? Besides, we all like to keep you "amused."

[joel hoffman]

I don't know where Prezmil2020 works, but if it's in DoD, it's possible that he has read DFARS PGI 201.602-2(i)(A), which states "For contract actions for services awarded by a DoD component or by any other Federal agency on behalf of DoD, contracting officers shall designate a properly trained COR in writing before award."

Now, as we all know from reading the recent shall/must/will thread, "shall" indicates that the action is mandatory. It is pretty obvious that a CO can represent himself, but DFARS PGI requires, nonetheless, that the CO "designate a properly trained COR in writing before award." Most DoD activities have a specified COR training course, or courses, that must be completed in order for a COR to be considered "properly trained," and if the CO hasn't completed the specified training course(s), some might argue that the CO doesn't meet the definition of "properly trained," and isn't allowed to designate him/herself. Thus, the question. I expect others may have engaged in the same semantic line of inquiry, so what's the harm in posting it here? Besides, we all like to keep you "amused."

I've been trying to refrain from this but I pretty much agree with Vern. The question was "Can the Contracting Officer, even though he/she did not take the required COR training courses, be a COR?" Then there was a bunch of additional discussion about required COR courses, etc. The COR is an authorized "Representative of the Contracting Officer".

Yes, there may or may not be differences between any particular Technical Contracting Officer's Representative and a COR. A COR might be qualified or not be qualified to adminster all of the technical aspects of contract performance. A TCOR is usually used for technical oversight and decisions.

But a regular COR must be qualified to at least handle or oversee the contract admin duties that are within their assignment, which. in my experience, may relate to understanding the contract clauses and conditions and performing the normal contract admin duties. The COR and/or PCO can enlist specialists to aid in the technical administration, whether they be TCOR's, inspectors, engineers, or other quality assurance personnel who aren't officially appointed as COR's. All COR's have authority that is limited to some degree and can draw on specialists to help them, too. Our offices have various specialists to handle various inspections, data input, estimating, conducting various meetings, etc.

A PCO duties include determination of merit and otherwise resolving claims, overseeing and being responsible for the performance of their COR's, making decisions to terminate or not, selecting the contractor, executing the contract, ultimately being responsible for the negotiation process for mods, etc., etc. If the PCO isn't allowed or qualified to be a regular COR, I'd think that they may be in the wrong line of work and should start immediately looking for other jobs.

I also agree with Vern that it may or may not be wise for the KO to be the COR, but I'd surely think that the KO is legally allowed to administer their own contract if they have to.

[Prezmil2020]

I've been trying to refrain from this but I pretty much agree with Vern. The question was "Can the Contracting Officer, even though he/she did not take the required COR training courses, be a COR?" Then there was a bunch of additional discussion about required COR courses, etc. The COR is an authorized "Representative of the Contracting Officer".

Yes, there may or may not be differences between any particular Technical Contracting Officer's Representative and a COR. A COR might be qualified or not be qualified to adminster all of the technical aspects of contract performance. A TCOR is usually used for technical oversight and decisions.

But a regular COR must be qualified to at least handle or oversee the contract admin duties that are within their assignment, which. in my experience, may relate to understanding the contract clauses and conditions and performing the normal contract admin duties. The COR and/or PCO can enlist specialists to aid in the technical administration, whether they be TCOR's, inspectors, engineers, or other quality assurance personnel who aren't officially appointed as COR's. All COR's have authority that is limited to some degree and can draw on specialists to help them, too. Our offices have various specialists to handle various inspections, data input, estimating, conducting various meetings, etc.

A PCO duties include determination of merit and otherwise resolving claims, overseeing and being responsible for the performance of their COR's, making decisions to terminate or not, selecting the contractor, executing the contract, ultimately being responsible for the negotiation process for mods, etc., etc. If the PCO isn't allowed or qualified to be a regular COR, I'd think that they may be in the wrong line of work and should start immediately looking for other jobs.

I also agree with Vern that it may or may not be wise for the KO to be the COR, but I'd surely think that the KO is legally allowed to administer their own contract if they have to.

Another lesson learned! Thanks for the information. Again, I was taught that if you are the ACO you perform admin duties. If you are the PCO, you perform the procuring duties. If you are the COR, you peform specific duties delagated by the PCO. Unless you have the formal, signed COR delegation letter you cannot be the COR. I was taught that the formal, signed COR delegation letter can only be sent to those who took the COR courses. With the information provided above, I will inform our division and hopefully put this to rest.

[joel hoffman]

Another lesson learned! Thanks for the information. Again, I was taught that if you are the ACO you perform admin duties. If you are the PCO, you perform the procuring duties. If you are the COR, you peform specific duties delagated by the PCO. Unless you have the formal, signed COR delegation letter you cannot be the COR. I was taught that the formal, signed COR delegation letter can only be sent to those who took the COR courses. With the information provided above, I will inform our division and hopefully put this to rest.

Prezmil, what you said is how it is usually intended to work. I was responding to the question "Can the PCO be the COR?" However, the PCO signs and acts in the PCO capacity, not as a "COR".

[Guest Vern Edwards]

I don't know where Prezmil2020 works, but if it's in DoD, it's possible that he has read DFARS PGI 201.602-2(i)(A), which states "For contract actions for services awarded by a DoD component or by any other Federal agency on behalf of DoD, contracting officers shall designate a properly trained COR in writing before award."

Now, as we all know from reading the recent shall/must/will thread, "shall" indicates that the action is mandatory. It is pretty obvious that a CO can represent himself, but DFARS PGI requires, nonetheless, that the CO "designate a properly trained COR in writing before award." Most DoD activities have a specified COR training course, or courses, that must be completed in order for a COR to be considered "properly trained," and if the CO hasn't completed the specified training course(s), some might argue that the CO doesn't meet the definition of "properly trained," and isn't allowed to designate him/herself. Thus, the question. I expect others may have engaged in the same semantic line of inquiry, so what's the harm in posting it here? Besides, we all like to keep you "amused."

I didn't say that there is any harm in posting the inquiry. I said that I am amused at the debate over the question.

The entire DFARS subparagraph in which your sentence quote appears reads as follows:

For contract actions for services awarded by a DoD component or by any other Federal agency on behalf of DoD, contracting officers shall designate a properly trained COR in writing before award. The surveillance activities performed by CORs should be tailored to the dollar value/complexity of the specific contract for which they are designated. Contracting officers may exempt service contracts from this requirement when the following three conditions are met:

(1) The contract will be awarded using simplified acquisition procedures;

(2) The requirement is not complex; and

(3) The contracting officer documents the file, in writing, why the appointment of a COR is unnecessary.

Note that the passage does not say what CO responsibilities must and need not be delegated to a COR, and that it does not say that a CO may not retain specific responsibilities, such as acceptance of services rendered or supplies delivered. See, e.g., FAR Subpart 46.5. Thus, it should not be interpreted as saying that a CO cannot act in his own behalf.

As for someone arguing that a CO doesn't meet the definition of "properly trained," and so cannot designate himself as COR, why would a CO have to designate himself to do what he is already empowered to do? The principal designates an agent, but doesn't designate himself as his own agent. If COR training teaches how to be a CO's agent, why would a CO need it?

Finally, I didn't realize that you all were engaged in a "semantic" line of inquiry. That is probably because Prezmil did not ask about the meaning of a text.

Thanks, Navy, for amusing me further.