GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: OMB sets standards for contracting officials

• 40227
  

  I find Mr. Denett's comments both insulting and demeaning. His insinuation is that the Contracting Officials are somehow inherently more ethical than the COTRs. His idea that a COTR is the "right hand of the Contracting Official" is laughable. In the two Departments that I have worked in, the Engineers were assigned "collateral" duties as COTR's to get the job they designed constructed, because the Contracting Official wouldn't have a clue as to the requirements. In fact Engineers would rather "be in hell with their backs broke" as to be considered a contracting individual. We are trained both technically, professionally and ethically from the start of our careers in college. Which by the way is more that 5 years for many. Most Contracting Officials I have worked with have little technical education to fall back on, they're are very good with regulations, but regulations won't keep you dry in a rainstorm. Both of the states I am registered to practice in believe that I have the ethics and technical background to design public facilities. Why should he have the right to question my ethics. Years ago Officers in the Department of Defense were the Contracting Officers on their projects and they were good enough to facilitate our winning of several wars and numerous conflicts. A multitude of public works projects were completed under this same arrangement. Now we have a few zealouts utilizing the failures of an even fewer individuals that have crossed the ethical lines to feather their own nests by forcing many of us to undergo even further training which is hard enough to come by along with our required 30 hours of engineering training. The agency can't afford the luxury of supporting two of my careers. It appears that Mr. Denett has the plague that seems to be going around and that is the tail seems to be wagging the dog. Respectfully submitted.

  Steven Ray Posted December 20, 2007 5:25 PM
• 38951
  

  In an area where the COTR's are NOT acquisition personnel but actual Subject matter experts, I find it hard to have to take additional training to satisfy acquistion requirements. I give my AQ office the requirement of what I need and then have to act as the COTR because they don't know how the system the contracted for works. If the acquisition personnel were actually knowledgeable in the technical areas that they were contracting for, it would save the government more money and make the acquistion process much leaner and more reliable.

  John J Posted December 5, 2007 2:02 PM
• 38753
  

  The issue is not training COR's/COTRS the issue is accountability. There is enough training already required for acquisition personnel. After 40 years working with the Government what I see are trained personnel without the work and moral ethics that are required for the positions they were hired for. If civil service had an easier process to penalize non-performance and unethical employees no additional training would be required

  John Willis Posted December 3, 2007 3:43 PM
• 38673
  

  Perhaps now COR's/COTR's will not attempt to get certified within the acquisition career field (1102) just to get ahead. All too often we are confronted with these individuals attempting to get certified within the acquisition career field with the required acquisition experience. A few have already sliped through which dos not bode within the career field as these individuals have no idea what a purchase order or, worse yet, a contract is prepared but yet they are ceritified at Level 2 of the acquistion career field.

  G Posted December 1, 2007 6:12 AM