This article addresses how critical it is for a Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to know their contract. That statement sounds like a massive ‘Duh!” but you would be surprised at how many CORs do not actually read and understand the terms and conditions of the contracted work to be performed. While this issue is not universal, it is common enough to be a frequent topic of discussion amongst government contracting personnel. I can easily imagine that contractors have similar thoughts and opinions about how well-versed the COR is regarding the contract that they oversee.
Let us begin by stating the standard to which CORs are held, and the tools that help them accomplish their assigned duties. The COR is appointed by the Contracting Officer to be the day-to-day overseer of the contract performance because COs typically have far more work to complete than the hours allotted in which to do them. COs usually delegate some of their oversight responsibility so that they can continue working on the other contract actions they have in the works. Remember, though, that CORs can only direct work currently set forth in the contract, regarding performance and schedule, because to modify either of those or the price, the CO must sign and issue the modification. Essentially, CORs make sure the contractor does what they are supposed to do and when they are supposed to do it and handles any issues that arise that do not require a contract modification. They also accept delivery or approve and evaluate performance, usually signing the DD250 (Material Inspection and Receiving Report), and process invoices for payment.
To be a COR, they receive training on the duties and responsibilities they are assuming. At the time of the appointment, a diligent CO briefs the COR on the specifics of the contract, usually with a thorough explanation of the Statement of Work (SOW) and the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). The SOW describes the technical requirements of the work being performed, and provides detailed descriptions of the tasks, conditions and standards of performance. The QASP complements the SOW and is the document that guides the COR’s oversight of the work being performed. It lays out the specific tasks to be performed, the schedule they are performed in, and the standard to which they are performed. Typically, the COR uses the QASP as a checklist, annotating performance or non-performance as applicable, and these notations feed the scheduled performance reports and any non-compliance actions that must be initiated.
The ideal COR is a technical expert in the field of work under contract because they understand why the work is being performed and how the outcome of the work affects their organization and its mission. Naturally, this depends on the complexity of the work. A lawn services contract does not require an expert lawn mower operator, or even a lawn mower mechanic. But for technical or engineering support, or similarly complex requirements, it helps a great deal if the COR is also an engineer, so that they possess sufficient knowledge of the specific work being performed. Thus, a good COR has a background in the type of work they are overseeing. But the real issue comes in their knowledge of the contract.
To be effective, the COR must know the terms and conditions under which the contractor is performing. To do that, they must read and understand the contract. In my experience, that is frequently a problem, because most CORs I have dealt with have a full-time job already, and the COR appointment is an additional duty. They are not experts in government contracting, and already have a full plate of responsibilities, so the COR appointment is often more resented than appreciated. This condition makes it easy for them to not apply themselves in reading, understanding and knowing the contract. Too often, they pay lip service to the notion of mastering the terms and conditions and rely instead on the contractor’s stated position rather than holding them to the negotiated standard. It is easy to see how this can compound and magnify problems as they arise, and how quickly this situation will become a problem for the CO to resolve.
To prevent such issues, CORs must be accountable for knowing the chapter and verse of the work they are supervising, and what steps are taken to attain and maintain the required standards. And COs must ensure that only qualified, committed personnel are nominated to be the CORs they appoint, because a deficient COR causes more harm than good.