An analysis of Army contract administration with regard to Contracting Officer's Representatives

Abstract

This research project examines Army contract administration procedures in the Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) performed by Contracting Officer's Representatives (CORs) for service contracts. We analyze COR roles, responsibilities, education/training, communication, staff levels, oversight, and leadership support by comparing and contrasting Army COR contract administration processes from a CONUS and OCONUS perspective. The results inform Army Contracting leadership about differences and discrepancies that exist in the training of CORs and in the processes followed. Using regulatory documents, audit reports, and interviews with CONUS and OCONUS CORs and supervisors, leaders, and commanders of CORs, we found gaps and challenges that affect the completion of COR duties relating to Army service contracts. We identified five common COR issues that need to be addressed: education/training, communication, staff Levels, oversight, and leadership support. We found that COR training differs in CONUS and OCONUS environments. Additionally, lessons learned revealed that COR training remains inadequate, communication among contracting personnel and CORs requires improvement, staff levels need to be increased to support contract administration, managers nominate CORs who lack technical knowledge and experience, and commanders and leaders neither understand the requirements needed to support contract administration requirements nor COR roles and responsibilities.