Different Titles for Contracting Officer's Representative

bob - I am taking the easy route with little research other than that which I can lay my hands on quickly.

See FAR part 2 which at some point included the definition of COR.  I did not wade through all supplements but the DoD carried the definition forward in the DFARS at part 202.  DHHS also carries the COR definition in HHSAR at part 302.   Interestingly in the HUDAR at part 2402 HUD retained  the GTR to mean the COR.   As note I did not do the research to go back and see when this definition was added to the FAR. 

FAI then reinforced the title COR, at least for the civilian side with this  2011 memo on certification - https://www.fai.gov/drupal/pdfs/FAC-COR_20Sep2011.pdf

Edit - I also just ran across this in doing some additional research, which is one DoD agency's take on the use of the COR term.

From the "Army Sustainment Command Contracting Officers Representative (COR) Handbook" at page 11.

"Personnel appointed by the Contracting Officer to assist in contract administration shall be identified as a Contracting Officer Representative (COR).  No other title is authorized by ASC."

While the FAR definition of COR includes a reference to COTR, the term COTR does not appear anywhere else in the FAR, just COR.  I suspect the term was left in the definition since there were already COTRs in place and they didn't want some people to think they were two different roles.  The term COR was not added to section 1.602-2 and the definition of COR at 2.101 until FAC 2005-50 dated 3/6/2011.

The only thing that I recall seeing that changed the term COTR to COR was related to the certification program managed by FAI.  See the link to a September 2011 OFPP letter below.  That letter cites the aforementioned change to the FAR.

https://www.fai.gov/drupal/pdfs/FAC-COR_20Sep2011.pdf 

USDA uses the term COR.  Prior to the 2011 OFPP letter the term COTR was used in internal policy.

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)

Within DOD, Quality Assurance Evaluator (QAE). See https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ccap/cc/jcchb/html/Topical/qa.html.

When a COR was not appointed, two titles I would come across were PATR (Procuring Activity Technical Representative) (DoD) and TPOC (Technical Point of Contact).(non-DoD).

Keep in mind the concept of "contracting officer's representative" as defined in FAR 2.101. A true COR has authority to act on behalf of the CO as appointed by the CO. Other "officials" do not. See the definition of "contracting officer" in FAR 2.101.

Contractually speaking, the title is not what counts. It's the authority.

At least one of the civilian agencies (Labor, Agriculture?) previously referred to them as the Government Authorized Representative (GAR).  I haven’t seen that used recently, though.

Shipbuilding specialist

awhinton said:

At least one of the civilian agencies (Labor, Agriculture?) previously referred to them as the Government Authorized Representative (GAR).  I haven’t seen that used recently, though.

I've only worked for the USDA for the 7 years, but have not seen that term used since then.  However, the USDA agency I work for used the term Government Representative (GR) to refer to the technical person from our agency that was the point of contact for recipients of Federal cooperative agreements that used the funds to award construction contracts.  The GR didn't act as a COR for the contract though since it wasn't a Federal contract, but instead worked with the recipient on the administration of their contract.

Oh what a tangled web we weave and should be support to bob that while he and even the FAR attempted to standardize the term Contracting Officer Representative such an attempt within the Federal government will never happen.  Good, bad, indifferent who knows but as this thread indicates its not what the title is, it is the authority formally vested in someone that would count in the end.

As to USDA, based on experience the term GAR was/is used by the USDA-Forest Service in documents such as specifications published by the agency for road construction and the like.  GAR was a catch all term for a inspector rather than a COR.   By example a 2014 standard road specification for the Eldorado National Forest - https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd556548.pdf .  

Other thoughts on GAR –

USDOL Office of  the Assistant Secretary for Administration  and Management (OASAM), Procurement Related Department of Labor Management Series (dlms), Chapter 870 which is no longer in print.

Government authorized representative (GAR) is the program manager designated by the contracting or grant officer to act as the contracting or grant officer's representative in overseeing technical performance and providing liaison between the contractor or recipient and the DOL. (In the various Agencies of the DOL, the GAR may also be called the "project officer", "contracting officer's representative (COR) ," "contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) ," or "Federal Representative (FR).").

And now the DOLAR at part 2902 - Contracting Officer's Technical Representative means the individual appointed by the contracting officer to represent the Department of Labor's programmatic interests on a Department of Labor contract, task order, or delivery order. This individual is responsible to the contracting officer for overseeing receipt and acceptance of goods/services by the Government, reporting on the contractor's performance, and approving/disapproving payment to the contractor. Authority is otherwise limited to giving technical direction to the contractor within the framework of the contract (see 2901.603-71). This position may go by other titles, such as: a technical point of contact (TPOC) or Contacting Officer's Representative (COR).

I've added Government Technical Monitor (GTM) to HUD in my original post.  The HUDAR defines the GTM as an assistant to the GTR.  I remembered GTM this morning.

For Department of State we have CORs and GTMs.  They both have the same training requirements for the same level of COR duties  (FAC COR I, II, or III).  The GTM is intended to designate that they work for the COR and not directly for the KO.  The KO delegates some of the COR duties to the GTM which could hold a lower COR level depending on duties assigned.  Many times the COR will be in the program office in Washington while having GTMs at sites around thee world.  The Bureaus sometimes insist we appoint an "Alternate COR" which is not in our DOSAR.  This person is usually someone who works in the office of the COR who fills all the same duties when the COR is TDY or on leave.  We have a lot of long overseas TDYS.  Since the training and experience is met, we usually don't argue and just appoint the Alternate. 

Our big problem with CORs is not their meeting training requirements but experience requirements.  The Government is becoming a revolving door and Bureaus can't find personnel with contracts experience and many do not have technical experience either.   With contractors filling our technical positions, the FTEs are sometimes managers from Foreign Service or other career fields and do not  know what to look for in performance.  We just appoint the best available Government Employee offered by the program office and they can get the experience on the job.

Carl:

Part 2 of the FAR includes this definition:  “Contracting officer’s representative (COR)” means an individual, including a contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR), designated and authorized in writing by the contracting officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions.

The OFPP document  from 2011 stated:   The term "COTR" is being changed to "COR" to align with the Federal Acquisition Regulation which now incorporates a definition for  Contracting Officers Representative andf includes designation of a COR as part of a Contracting Officer's responsibilities. 

The FAR's definition of Contracting Officer is:  “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.  (emphasis added by me)

So a COR or COTR, might become a CO, if the individual is acting within the limits of their authority.  Maybe we need another acronym, say CARP-CO, for "certain authorized representatives of the contracting officer acting within the limits of their authority as delegated by the contracting officer. " so as not to get anyone confused.

What do you think?

Carl:

I just saw you included the acronym: GAR which is also a type of fish.  I am seeing real possibilities for my suggested acronym CARP-CO.

Bob 

Can't say that I have swallowed your logic hook, line and sinker, but you have lured me in.  As in most cases CARP require no license to engage with would your new acronym also require a certification or could they just swim on their own?

GAR was a throw back (catch and release) so I am concerned that CARP may be looked at the same.

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

"Rough Fish" is the more desirable term.   Yet a fish by any other name is still a fish.

bob7947 said:

The FAR's definition of Contracting Officer is:  “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.  (emphasis added by me)

So a COR or COTR, might become a CO, if the individual is acting within the limits of their authority.  Maybe we need another acronym, say CARP-CO, for "certain authorized representatives of the contracting officer acting within the limits of their authority as delegated by the contracting officer. " so as not to get anyone confused.

You won't be confused by the terminology if you understand the concepts.

The definition of contracting officer in FAR 2.101 is based on policy, case law, and the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. See 41 USC § 7101:

Quote

(6)Contracting officer.—The term “contracting officer”—

(A) means an individual who, by appointment in accordance with applicable regulations, has the authority to make and administer contracts and to make determinations and findings with respect to contracts; and

(B) includes an authorized representative of the contracting officer, acting within the limits of the representative’s authority.

The CDA and the FAR definition simply reflect long-standing case law to the effect that the government will be bound by the authorized act of a COR as though the act by been done by the formally appointed CO. The COR does not "become" a formally appointed CO.

The term COR, as used in FAR, refers to someone who is authorized by the CO to act on his or her behalf with respect to specified matters. It doesn't matter what the person's job title is, what matters is whether he or she was authorized by the CO, in accordance with regulations, to act on the CO's behalf.

See Cibinic, Nash, and Yukins, Formation of Government Contracts 4th ed., pp. 92-96 or Cibinic, Nash, and Nagle, Administration of Government Contracts 5th, pp. 36-41. See also Nash, "Contracting Officer Authority: A Strict Requirement," The Nash & Cibinic Report (November 2007), and the "postscripts" that followed. The authority of an "authorized representative of the of contracting officer" was severely restricted by the decision of the Federal Circuit in Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Joint Venture, 497 F.3d 1339 (2007).

By focusing on job titles, this thread misses the mark. The real questions are (1) what if any authorities do the various government personnel interacting with the contractor really have, regardless of their job titles, and (2) what does the contract say about who can do what on behalf of the government.

Quote

You won't be confused by the terminology if you understand the concepts.

The definition of contracting officer in FAR 2.101 is based on policy, case law, and the Contract Disputes Act of 1978. See 41 USC § 7101:

Yes, I know. 

Quote

The CDA and the FAR definition simply reflect long-standing case law to the effect that the government will be bound by the authorized act of a COR as though the act by been done by the formally appointed CO. The COR does not "become" a formally appointed CO.

The term COR, as used in FAR, refers to someone who is authorized by the CO to act on his or her behalf with respect to specified matters. It doesn't matter what the person's job title is, what matters is whether he or she was authorized by the CO, in accordance with regulations, to act on the CO's behalf.

Yes, I know. 

Quote

By focusing on job titles, this thread misses the mark.

No it doesn't it does exactly what I wanted it to do.

The Department of Commerce has a Task Order Manager (TOM), who is delegated authority over specifically-enumerated TOs, usually in conjunction with multi-award IDVs (COR delegation is at the IDV level).  Bonus points are awarded if you are a TOM whose given name is "Tom".

Related question: Does a  CO who has COR responsibilities require a delegation from the contract CO? (e.g., a CO-COR who has oversight of contractors in a government procurement shop).   I say 'yes' as a matter of administrative clarity, but *some* on my team have argued that such a delegation is redundant and unnecessary.  

The main difference in my mind is that the CO would not be required to be certified as a COR, assuming their FAC-C/DAWIA certification was valid.

bob7947 said:

No it doesn't it does exactly what I wanted it to do.

And what was that? Please remind me.

REA'n Maker said:

Related question: Does a warrant-holding CO who has COR responsibilities require a delegation from the contract CO? (e.g., a CO who has oversight of contractors performing Specialist duties in a government procurement shop).   I say 'yes' as a matter of administrative clarity, but *some* on my team have argued that such a delegation is redundant and unnecessary.  

The main difference in my mind is that the CO would not be required to be certified as a COR, assuming their FAC-C/DAWIA certification was valid.

When I found myself in this situation as a FAC-C Level III CO with an unlimited warrant, I was appointed (in writing) as a COR on a contract and of course did not serve as the CO for the contract.  Because policy requires all CORs to be FAC-COR certified, I obtained my Level I FAC-COR certification.  They way I view it, just because I'm a CO, doesn't mean I have unlimited authority to change other CO's contracts anytime I want.  If I'm appointed as a COR, my possession of a FAC-C certification and warrant is irrelevant.  I must follow the policies applicable to CORs.  Besides, obtaining the certification should take an hour, if not minutes.  A CO should be able to quickly click through 8 hours of online training and ace the test (what is required in my agency for a Level I COR).

REA'n Maker said:

Does a  CO who has COR responsibilities require a delegation from the contract CO? (e.g., a CO-COR who has oversight of contractors in a government procurement shop).   I say 'yes' as a matter of administrative clarity, but *some* on my team have argued that such a delegation is redundant and unnecessary.

Does FAR 42.202 answer your question?

Todd Davis said:

Because policy requires all CORs to be FAC-COR certified, I obtained my Level I FAC-COR certification.

Silly. The requirement should be considered unnecessary or be waived for any FAC-C Level III CO. You could have signed the contract, but you had to get additional certification to administer the contract as a representative of a CO such as yourself? Eight wasted hours. How many pages in a good book on contracting could you have read in that time?

Vern Edwards said:

Silly. The requirement should be considered unnecessary or be waived for any FAC-C Level III CO. You could have signed the contract, but you had to get additional certification to administer the contract as a representative of a CO such as yourself? Eight wasted hours. How many pages in a good book on contracting could you have read in that time?

At the time I didn't think of the option of being delegated certain ACO responsibilities which I believe you may be referring to at FAR 42.202.  That makes more sense than appointing a CO as a COR. 

Also, even if a CO were appointed as a COR, I agree that having to obtain the certification should be waived as being unnecessary.  I obtained mine so as not to be found out of compliance with a policy that applies to individuals appointed as CORs.  In hindsight, I could have argued that the requirement should not apply to an individual who is already a CO.  Fortunately, I didn't waste 8 hours and was able to apply continuous learning from my FAC-C certification maintenance to obtain the COR certification.

Todd Davis said:

They way I view it, just because I'm a CO, doesn't mean I have unlimited authority to change other CO's contracts anytime I want.

Note that the FAR defines "CO" as an individual with "... the authority to make and administer contracts and to make determinations and findings with respect to contracts", so I would say you do have unlimited authority to change other CO's contracts anytime you want, within reason (i.e., your authority must be derived from the same source as the other CO).   COs change/back each other up all the time, with no 'CO novation' necessary.  I don't disagree with  the gist of your point; however, I think that professional courtesy is what drives not messing in your colleague's business, not legal implications.

Todd Davis said:

If I'm appointed as a COR, my possession of a FAC-C certification and warrant is irrelevant.

So, for example, if your unlimited CO warrant allows you award a $100M contract , and your FAC-COR I allows you to administer a $1M contract, if you were to award and administer the contract as CO,  your authority to administer the contract would be unlimited, but you wouldn't be eligible to act as a  COR  for the same contract?   Doesn't that seem kind of absurd?

REA'n Maker said:

So, for example, if your unlimited CO warrant allows you award a $100M contract , and your FAC-COR I allows you to administer a $1M contract, if you were to award and administer the contract as CO,  your authority to administer the contract would be unlimited, but you wouldn't be eligible to act as a  COR  for the same contract?   Doesn't that seem kind of absurd?

Maybe I didn't articulate it well, but my point was that if I was appointed as a COR to do specific things, the fact that I have a warrant doesn't factor into the responsibilities I've been delegated.  I've only been delegated certain responsibilities by the CO for the contract (assuming those do not involve changing or terminating the contract) and those activities are all I should do because that is all that I was asked to do.  However, if was then asked by the CO or their supervisor to do something outside the COR delegation like issuing a modification or terminating the contract, I'd proceed with that action under my authority as a CO, not as a COR. 

I know realize the whole issue of appointing a CO as a COR should be unnecessary, since a CO can simply designate another CO as a ACO for a contract and define their responsibilities in that designation letter.

REA'n Maker said:

COs change/back each other up all the time, with no 'CO novation' necessary. I don't disagree with  the gist of your point; however, I think that professional courtesy is what drives not messing in your colleague's business, not legal implications.

I agree.  I'm limiting myself by professional courtesy and organizational responsibility (not legal authority), since the contract is not assigned to me to act as the CO.

Quote

And what was that? Please remind me.

I was asking for information about the titles as my original post mentions.  Since it is for my own research, I didn't think anyone cared about that.  As you realize, titles are nothing more than that---titles.  However, they are a good starting point to begin a search--and that is the reason I menioned them in my original post.  As you explained, definitions and authorities are what is important.  Those definitions may be in FAR suplements and authorities may be spelled out in solicitations.   Those sources are free and online.  Additionally, years of BCA and court cases are online for free.  So, there are documents out there to pursue research on Wifcon.com's budget.  I already know my initial steps.

Any information provided in this topic, may reduce the time it takes and lead me to further research.  The titles I listed in my original post were from memory, as I stated, and date back to the 1980s.  While I was looking at the contracts and contract files from that era and from an assortment of agencies, I realized that the different title-holders were performing either the same or similar function.   I seem to remember back then that COTR was used more often than COR but that was a long time ago.  Many things have changed since then.  Back then, it was a victory finding an agency with a COTR, GTR, COR, Project Officer, etc. handbook.

What I am looking for in my research is a lot of different titles, performing the same or very similar functions, and causing problems in the contracting process.   Any type of disharmony will keep the research alive.  I expect I will be done in a year or so, if I feel it is worth continuing.

Bob:

For purposes of your research you might be interested in the 1927 decision U.S. v. A. Bentley & Sons Co., 15 F.2d 895 (Sixth Cir., 1927), in which I believe is to be found the first mention of the phrase "contracting officer's representative" by any federal court. The case was about an Army cost-reimbursement construction contract.

Headnote 8 reads as follows:

Quote

Whether constructing quartermaster was contracting officer's representative as respects army cantonment construction contract held dependent on his authorized acts, and not on his title.

According to the court (warning--archaic language):

Quote

The contract defines the contracting officer as any person to whom the duties of contracting officer may be assigned by the Secretary of War, or any duly appointed representative of that officer. The amendment says that the "work of constructing said cantonment was immediately in charge of a constructing quartermaster stationed at Chillicothe." It thus appears that the constructing quartermaster was given charge of the construction of the camp, and further, by other averments, that acting under authority of the government he approved and accepted the work of the contractor and repaid to it the cost thereof ‘form [sic] time to time as in said contract provided.‘ This the contracting officer or his representative alone had the right to and could do; this the constructing quartermaster did; and this the government approved and accepted as the work of a contracting officer. Whether the constructing quartermaster was a representative of the contracting officer does not [de]pend so much on the allegation that he was no[t], or on the title by which he was designated, as upon what he did at the instance and by the authority of the government. One cannot confer upon his agent the authority to do certain acts, accept and approve them as done, and thereafter repudiate such of them as he chooses solely because he withheld from the agent— perhaps here without the knowledge of the other party— the official or nominal title of the one or the class through whom he contracted to act. A mere name is not so potent. The petition alleges facts showing that the constructing quartermaster, by whatever name called, was a representative of the contracting officer. The legal effect of those facts cannot be destroyed by anything less than a positive and unmistakable showing of other facts to the contrary. This is not to be found in the averments of the amendment[.]

Emphasis added. Footnote omitted.

So, as you can see, the problem that you are researching is an old one.

My ideal case, at this point, would assume something similar to the following:

• contract manager not defined in any agency supplement and not defined in the contract,
• defnition of contrating officer's representative (COR) as defined in the FAR,
• contracting officer,
• work performed by the contractor at the direction of the contract manager,
• suit brought by the contractor claiming the contract manager was not a representative of the contracting officer because it was not a COR as defined in the FAR, there is nothing in the contract, etc.

It doesn't matter to me that a case is won or lost.  What is important is that a case is brought based upon an individual acting as a COR but with a different title.  At this point, a case does not matter.  It will take me a good amount of time searching for titles and defnitions in FAR supplements.

However, there is some hope when you look at the FAR definition of COR that includes a COTR, Carl's 2011 OFPP memo that thinks COTR is gone from the FAR, and FAIs thoughts.  I need to show disharmony exists which I am sure it does.  There are different title holders acting as CORs out there as this topic shows.  I need more than the proliferation of titles.  Some day, I might be able to prove there is a detrimental effect of this but that is somewhere in the distant future at this point.  And I may never get that far.

bob7947 said:

• work performed by the contractor at the direction of the contract manager,
• suit brought by the contractor claiming the contract manager was not a representative of the contracting officer because it was not a COR as defined in the FAR, there is nothing in the contract, etc.

Bob,

If the contractor performed the work at the direction of the contract manager, why would it file suit arguing that the contract manager was not a COR? Would't that be the government's argument?

Vern

Yeah.  My scenario was defective.  It's still early in the morning and I didn't sleep.

We're retirees, Bob. We can sleep whenever we want. Get some sleep.

bob7947 said:

Some day, I might be able to prove there is a detrimental effect of this

Bob - I may not be following correctly but these thoughts occurred to me as I continue to read this thread.

1.  The determination of "detrimental effect" might include research of implied authority as in did a certain title other than COR lead  to an implied authority issue.

2.  I do wonder if clarification of actual authority through statute, regulation and case law has refined the view expressed in the 1927 decision noted and in effect circles back to the ideal that wouldn't it be nice if everyone called a person with contractual authority (with whatever stated limits) simply a "Contracting Officer".  Whether such ideal would prevent conflicts arising or related to a contract is the question and it seems it hasn't to date so probably never will.

I am providing the following items from the FAR and HUD's agency supplement.  The first is from the FAR and discusses an aspect of the FAR System.  I think it is self-explanatory.  After reading all 3 excerpts, please answer the following question.  Do you believe the HUDAR is in compliance with the spirit of the FAR system.  Yes or No?

The following quote is from the FAR

Quote

1.304 Agency control and compliance procedures.

(b) Agency acquisition regulations shall not—

(1) Unnecessarily repeat, paraphrase, or otherwise restate material contained in the FAR . . .

The following quote is from the FAR and defines the COR.

Quote

2.101 Definitions.

(a) . . .

“Contracting officer’s representative (COR)” means an individual, including a contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR), designated and authorized in writing by the contracting officer to perform specific technical or administrative functions.

The following is from the HUD FAR supplement.

Quote

2402.101 Definitions.

"Government Technical Representative (GTR)" means the individual serving as the Contracting Officer's representative responsible for monitoring the technical aspects of a contract, including guidance, oversight, and evaluation of the Contractor's performance and deliverables.  (emphasis provided)

No

HUD appears to have concluded through the regulatory process to have the GTR be the go to person for both administration of contracts FAR and grants and cooperative agreements.   

24 CFR 115.100 “Government Technical Representative (GTR) means the HUD staff person who is responsible for the technical administration of the FHAP grant, the evaluation of performance under the FHAP grant, the acceptance of technical reports or projects, the approval of payments, and other such specific responsibilities as may be stipulated in the FHAP grant.”

I wonder how  HUD adequately demonstrated how the change of COR to GTR is necessary to implementing the FAR specific to the needs within HUD

FAR 1.302 -- Limitations. Agency acquisition regulations shall be limited to --

(a) Those necessary to implement FAR policies and procedures within the agency; and

(b) Additional policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to satisfy the specific needs of the agency.

In the end HUD seems to admit that their use of GTR is inconsistent with the FAR but what the heck!   Reference - see the definition of COTR in this document -----

http://afgecouncil222.com/B/8fac-cotrart5.pdf

Carl:

If you go down to 1.6 of the HHSAR, you will see a use of COTR and a mention of project officer's appointed by program managers . . .  I think it mentioned project officer's acting as COTRs too.  It takes some effort to figure it all out.  Then HHSAR's part 2 defines COR.  I think these supplements contain a mixture of the past and near present ideas.

I have a contract at DISA that designates an ACOR and TCOR (which is really meant to be COTR, but named in the same format as the previous).

Administrative COR and Technical COR.

I find this odd and I've only see it done once, on this particular contract.