As I think I indicated I don't think the COTR/COR business is the issue because neither of the specifics appear to fall within the authority of such a person. I think the organization being "served" in this fashion has an issue.

This falls into the category of having a bad situation for efficiency. The very idea that a contracting office in another country can adequately handle the day-to-day affairs of a service contract completely out of sight is about as amusing as Eric's draft SOW story. It certainly puts the lie to all the talk on this board about contracting offices needing to serve customers. Though I have doubts on some aspects of that, this is not one. The requiring customer, I presume DaMurph's, needs to have input in the contract. If the Navy office is one of those non-service types, I think the requiring activity, possibly at a command level, needs to take action to see their service isn't yanked about by blind remote control from afar. I think the problem may well be a one-size-fits-all approach in the Navy office -- something like the UK Navy office setting grass cutting requirements for a desert post somewhere. Clueless.

PS: Thanks for the chuckle Eric. I'm picturing a food riot at the remote location if the original had gone through. Maybe like the Sepoy rebellion where cartridges greased with hog fat (not true) was an issue for islamic troops required to bite the cartriges open.

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, June 28, 2000 - 04:22 pm:

Bob,

I think DaMurph has got himself into a position where he is spending lots of time on the phone trying to get vouchers and other paperwork to move, by prodding the various links in the bureaucratic chain. He wants to simplify his life by having some of this approval authority delegated to him in the contract.

He may generate some significant hard feelings if he announces that he doesn’t want to do this in the future. And there may be cross cultural issues, assuming that this might be a foreign contractor. As far as I know, anybody has “authority” to get on the phone and prod the payment office or whoever.

But as you say, we don’t really disagree because this is all assumptions.

Eric

By bob antonio on Wednesday, June 28, 2000 - 03:58 pm:

Eric:

I too believe there is more to this story than is presented here. However, there is a difference between "not in my job description" and "not within my authority."

In this case, I assume "not within my authority" applies." However, as you say there is something missing here.

By Eric Ottinger on Wednesday, June 28, 2000 - 01:33 pm:

Bob and Raymond,

Not really disagreeing as much as it might appear--.

You are telling a Government technical customer, who relies on a contractor (probably foreign) for necessary services; who interfaces with the contractor on a daily basis, to say “not in my job description” in hopes that this will get the contractor worked up to the point that the contractor will give the Contracting Officer a certain amount of grief, so that the Contracting Officer will be motivated to delegate some functions, to get the contractor out of his/her hair.

From a strictly pragmatic point of view this may not be a bad plan. On the other hand, it might backfire. The Contracting Officer may dig in his/her heels and be even less cooperative.

(It sure as heck isn’t “Acquisition Reform”.)

I can think of three categories which might apply here: (1) routine inspection and acceptance functions, (2) routine contract administration functions (including showing the contractor how to fill out forms and how to work with the U.S. Government bureaucracy) and (3) COR/COTR functions per se.

My guess is that Da Murph doesn’t really need to be a COR to do what he wants to do. Also, I suspect that DaMurph and the Contracting Officer may be talking past each other.

My recommendation is that DaMurph find out how this Navy buying office normally interfaces with the technical customer in similar situations. If he requests an approach which the buying office finds familiar, using the terminology familiar to the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer will probably agree.

I assume that DaMurph understands what might be viewed as a constructive change and doesn’t need or want to be in a position where he might give such inappropriate direction.

I may have this all wrong. In that case we need to hear from DaMurph.

I should note that a COR delegation does not really give the COR authority to do anything which might be viewed as a change to the contract. (I don’t really think a delegation letter would make DaMurph much less vulnerable than he is in the situation he is in.) And I would not want to be a COR unless I had a good working relationship with the Contracting Officer.

Hoping this clarifies a bit.

Eric

By bob antonio on Wednesday, June 28, 2000 - 08:37 am:

DaMurph:

I think Raymond's comment is on point. Here are my thoughts and concerns.

First, I assume that neither you nor anyone else has authority on that contract--other than the contracting officer in the UK.

Suppose that you forward the concerns of the contractor to the contracting officer on a regular basis. Suppose the contracting officer responds to the contractor on a regular basis about the concerns that you provided.

Now, suppose the contractor is working beyond the scope of the contract. You happen by, say hello to the contractor, and continue on your way.

Suppose I am the contractor. I have provided a service beyond the scope of the contract and I want to get paid. I want to show that the contracting officer was aware of my work and approved of it. I reach into my bag of tricks and think of "constructive knowledge." You are acting as my conduit to the contracting officer. Check and maybe checkmate.

As Raymond said, provide the contractor with the name, address, and phone number of the contracting officer and walk away.

By Raymond Pouliot on Wednesday, June 28, 2000 - 06:48 am:

Please forgive my audacity...
Do you believe the KO is fully aware of the extent of your necessary involvement?

Why would you want to be designated as a COTR?
If these contract-related duties are properly the KO's, refer the contractor to the KO. If this becomes a burden for the KO you can bet you or someone in your unit will be delegated some authority to act. Just be sure you get the delegation in writing. That is for your protection.
I know you will risk appearing uncooperative but you have no other bargaining chip with the KO. To avoid undue delay (& possible extra cost to the Government) you can alternatively request the KO to ratify everything you do. This could have an equivalent effect but there is a chance you'd have your knuckles rapped for acting without formal authority.
(I think the thread of this discussion has begun to wander from your predicamnet. Perhaps my "oar in the water" here can help.)
I have the experience of helping with invoice processing on an IDIQ task order bsaed contract for the last 6-7 years & I do not see where being designated a COTR (COR) would have been any help in getting the work done.

By Eric Ottinger on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 04:45 pm:

Ramon,

It gets better. The workforce at this isolated location was roughly one hundred contractor employees from a tropical country with a great spicy cuisine, and 10 American citizens. The draft SOW specified that the mess hall would serve standard American cafeteria chow, no exceptions. I recommended that it might be a boost to morale, all the way around, if they replaced the chipped beef on toast with something spicier and more interesting.

This was a draft SOW based on the precious contract. Subsequent drafts were much improved.

Eric

By Ramon Jackson on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 04:18 pm:

Eric,

Come on! Are you sure the Contracting Officer didn't fly out with a ruler to measure the grass? Seriously, this is one example of the kind of thing I was talking about that causes waste and inefficiency in contract management. They probably put grass height in as a contractual thing too. Then if the locals had a good reason not to cut so short or so long it became a contract matter.

I sometimes have difficulty deciding if this is just stupidity or a form of job protection.

Ramon

By Eric Ottinger on Tuesday, June 27, 2000 - 11:13 am:

Vern,

I have a pretty good idea what I mean by “technical direction,” but I agree that one can find many different interpretations depending on the contractual situation, the ingrained habits of the agency, and the explicit language in the contract.

Suffice that the role of a COR is a lot less passive than our boilerplate would suggest.

DaMurph,

A couple of afterthoughts-- Is this a Time and Materials contract. If so, it is imperative that there be a Government person at the site to verify that contractor is delivering the hours.

The particular functions that you mention don’t require a full delegation of COR authority. Your PCO may not be amenable to giving a COR delegation letter, but he/she may be willing to modify the contract to make you the person who approves invoices, or to allow you to perform other specific functions that Government technical personnel routinely perform in the field.

(I reviewed an RFP prepared by another agency once. The “Contracting Officer” verified that the grass was cut two inches high and the “Contracting Officer” verified that various tags were initialed a monthly intervals. Aside from the element of micro management, I thought it highly amusing that the Contracting Officer could do this from his office several thousands of miles from the site. For this kind of purpose, the Contracting Officer is a rather amorphous entity and all kinds of people can be the eyes and ears of the Contracting Officer.)

Regards,

Eric

By Vern Edwards on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 04:58 pm:

Eric:

I don't really disagree with you, but a word of caution--

The term "technical direction" does not have a common definition. It means different things to different people.

You correctly advise DaMurph to avoid making constructive changes, but many if not most constructive changes are made in the course of giving "technical direction." Many "experts" have stumbled in the course of trying to explain the difference between technical direction and change. They usually say that technical direction explains what the contract means while change alters add, deletes, or substitutes requirements. Unfortunately, it happens that what the contract may mean to the COTR, or what it may mean to the COTR and the contractor's tech rep, and what it may mean to the contractor's business representative or lawyer are two different things. Formal technical direction clauses have not really cleared things up in that regard.

So while I don't disagree with you that the COTR's job usually encompasses more than quality assurance, I caution DaMurph that viewpoints on the duties of a COTR vary significantly from one contracting officer to the next. There is no formal specification of those duties in the FAR or in agency FAR supps, and it may be that DaMurph's CO has refused to designate a COTR because of problems that she or he has had with one in the past.

By Eric Ottinger on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 04:23 pm:

DaMurph,

(1) The preferred term is now COR. (But many of us still like COTR.)

(2) DoD tried to regularize these matters by prescribing the DFARS 252.201-7000 “Contracting officer’s representative” clause.

“CONTRACTING OFFICER’S REPRESENTATIVE (DEC 1991)

(a) Definition. Contracting officer’s representative means an individual designated in accordance with subsection 201.602-2 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement and authorized in writing by the contracting officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions.

(b) If the Contracting Officer designates a contracting officer’s representative (COR), the Contractor will receive a copy of the written designation. It will specify the extent of the COR’s authority to act on behalf of the contracting officer. The COR is not authorized to make any commitments or changes that will affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or any other term or condition of the contract.”

Is this clause in your contract?

(3) A COR letter is really a delegation of Contracting Officer authority. This should not be done casually.

(4) Disagreeing with Vern a little bit. The primary purpose of delegating to a COR is to designate a single person (other than the CO) with unique authority to provide technical direction. There is a lot more to the COR function than quality assurance. The usual boilerplate makes it sound like the COR has a rather passive function. This is not the real world.

We indoctrinate everybody with the idea that any direction might be a constructive change and cost the Government money. But there are many contractual situations where the lack of timely technical direction will cost us money. These are the situations when we need a COR.

(5) When I was on the contract administration side, I learned that the local QAR or Production Specialist was effectively THE representative of the U.S. Government at remote contractor locations. And this person was often expected to provide all kinds of help (like solving payment problems) that wasn’t in the job description.

If the COR clause is in the contract, someone should be designated COR. Otherwise, if that buying office doesn’t want to designate a COR, they probably won’t.

I don’t think there is anything that prohibits you from performing these little extra duties like helping the contractor with the paperwork and solving payment problems. (In fact, I think that is typical.) However, if you don’t have any specific delegation of authority, be extra careful about constructive changes or any kind of direction where you don’t have delegated authority.

Hoping this helps,

Eric

By Ramon Jackson on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 01:14 pm:

The two specific things mentioned would seem to be out of COTR scope anyway. Late payments vice certification the service was rendered for payment does not seem to fall in a COTR's area of responsibility except to help resolve the issue with government.

Changes at a contractual level also seem to be involved. That may be more a problem with an overly detailed contract. It seems to me that one of the arts of contract formation is to carefully determine what must be contractual and what is coordination that need not be a contractual matter.

The way off many of these hooks would be to write limits into the contract along with mechanisms for the micro level delivery schedule (and similar) matters that so often need local adjustment. Why, for example, make the need to adjust hours of service from 0800-1630 local to 0700-1530 local to meet a local contingency a contractual change? For purposes of pay some core hours need be set, but why not a zone of 0600-1800 with 8.5 hours within this zone as set in coordination with the served organization under a set of guidelines?

This seems particularly needed in service contracts where someone in the UK cannot possibly do detailed level coordination between the served organization and the contractor in Germany. Failure to do the sorting of what must be contractual and what is reasonably coordination is what gets people into doing change orders because of silly things like loading dock availability.

The art comes in structuring a contract that sets the framework for execution and not one full of unneeded micodefinition.

By Kennedy How on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 12:14 pm:

In this particular case, it appears that the Government person on site is monitoring a contract for services, so in that regard, his sole function would be to ensure that the services are being performed, to the satisfaction of the contract. In those instance, there may not necessarily be a requirement to appoint a COTR, the CO will retain the authority to authorize payment of vouchers, etc. I would think that the on-site person would forward a report to the CO certifying satisfactory performance.

In our office, we have a couple of people who are COTRs on service contracts. They are for software/systems development, and they are the requiring activity. They are authorized to do the certification for payments, on time and materials type tasks, on a monthly basis. They are the best people to do this, because they are the customer. We could just leave the payment authorization to the PCO, but they'd just have to ask us if performance is satisfactory, in order to authorize payment. Burdensome, but if that's what they want to do, so be it.

Kennedy

By Vern Edwards on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 10:09 am:

DaMurph:

You ask if you can request that the contracting officer issue a COTR appointment letter. The answer is: yes. However, you probably cannot make the CO do it.

Generally, COTRs perform "contract quality assurance," i.e., inspection for conformity with contract requirements--i.e., "quality assurance." Quality assurance is covered in FAR Part 46. See FAR 46.103, which says, in part:

"Contracting offices are responsible for--

(a) Receiving from the activity responsible for technical requirements any specifications for inspection, testing, and other contract quality requirements essential to ensure the integrity of the supplies or services (the activity responsible for technical requirements is responsible for prescribing contract quality requirements, such as inspection and testing requirements or, for services contracts, a quality assurance sureveillance plan)[.]"

Despite that passage, I know of no rule in FAR, DFARS, or the Navy Acquisition Procedures Supplement (NAPS) that requires the contracting officer to appoint a COTR (although many agencies have internal policies about such appointments).

Your CO's unwillingness to appoint a COTR seems unusual. Somebody has to inspect the services (see FAR 46.401(a)), so you might ask your CO who he or she thinks that is. If that's you, then the CO should notify the contractor in writing and send you a letter to the inspector describing your duties and the limitations of your authority.

Check to see if your office has an interservice support agreement with the contracting officer's office. If it does, then the agreement may say something about inspection of services and appointment of COTRs.

By DaMurph on Monday, June 26, 2000 - 07:18 am:

I work in Germany and deal with several contractors on service contracts. One contract we own is drawn by a Navy contracting office and the KO tells me there is no requirement she must assign a COTR. The contractor provides services DIRECTLY to us and, in many cases, contacts me directly regarding late payments (by the gov't), requests for change on performance date of a CLIN, etc. This is natural because we are the ones he sees on a regular basis. The KO is in England! This is a very uncomfortable situation...can I not request COTR assignment letter? THANKS for any input!