Contingency and contracting officers are entitled to recognize and understand their contracting authority field and the organizational construct on which they partake in their duties. In this essay am going to articulate chapter two, which discusses the legal authorities and distinguishes between the contracting authorities and the command authorities. The chapter elucidates the general overview of organizational support options, contracting structure, typical structure, and the stuffing of joint theatre support contacting command (RAUTERBERG, 2016). The aspects discussed concerning stuffing and structures could be used to handle and solve humanitarian and some disasters encountered in our day-to-day lives.
Contracting authority is the legal authority that enables one to enter into a binding contract and compels funds on behalf of the U.S. government. On the other hand, command authority encompasses the authority and the responsibility for effectively using available resources and scheduling the employment, direction, organization, and military forces to complete the assigned mission. In relation to FAR 1.602, the contracting officers are the only staff entitled to enter into, administer, or even dissolve the contracts and make the associated determinations and findings. Contracting officers have the mandate to impasses the government in matters only delegated to them.
In selecting and appointing the contracting officers, the head of contracting activities (H.C.A.) appoints the senior contracting officials (S.C.O.s), naming them and delegates some of the authorities to them. This includes the appointment of the contingency contracting officers in their monitor. The contracting warrant authority handles the matter related to selecting, appointing and cessation of the contracting officer’s warrants. The S.C.O. appoints the contracting personnel operating under H.C.A. based on the experience, knowledge acquisition policies, and procedures and the training in relation to the minimum standards of the defense workshop perfection act (10 U.S.C. Section 1701 et seq.).
The H.C.A. is responsible for sighting contracts and ensuring that they comply with the applicable acts, conventions, and sound business practices in the contracting structure. For instance, in the small-scale contingency, the assignment of H.C.A. is within the service channeling. On the other hand, large-scale contingency, the joint support contracting command structure, is a prerequisite (Stewart et al., 2020). The department of defense directives agents is generally in conjunction with the alias of the service for basic user logistics following the joint publication act. The contracting official establishes policies and directions for developing and managing contracting processes. The regional chief officer chief is responsible for planning, supervising, purchasing, contracting, and administration to ensure procedural compliance in the system.
Larger and more advanced contingencies require the deployment of the joint theater support contracting command since they require more oversight. The joint command contains the command and the control authority over the selected support region. It performs a similar role as that of a lead service organization and is responsible for joint user logistics to the area of operation. In the joint subordinate organizations, regional contracting offices are jointed in contracting organizations as per the command and control of the regional and contracting centers. They are led and directed by a composition of two to eight warranted contracting officers.
The size and the general makeup of the regional contracting offices entirely depend on the mission requirements. They are significant in providing support areas to the specified operating bases. Generally, contracts are authorized by contracting officers as stated on the federal law of acquisition, giving them the ability to administer or terminate contracts. Hence, it is elemental for an officer to differentiate between the command line of duty and the contracting line of duty.
References
RAUTERBERG, G. (2016). Contracting within the Firm. Work. Pap.
Stewart, B. A., Linley, V. J., & Hamdouni, N. (2020). Analysis of Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR) Contracting Processes Using the Contract Management Maturity Model (CMMM). Naval Postgraduate School. an article that relates command and contracting lines of authority – Google Search. (n.d.). Www.google.com. Retrieved December 15, 2021, from https://www.google.com/search?q=an+article+that+relates+command+and+contracting+lines+of+authority&rlz=1C1BNSD_enKE968KE968&oq=an+article+that+relates+command+and+contracting+lines+of+authority&aqs=chrome.69i57.65205j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
write