When you have a COR Exempt contract, should there be written documentation, either through meetings, surveillances by Contract Specialists, etc. on how the contractor is doing for the oversight required by the regulation? Or is it okay to accept the acceptance of the invoice? With the acceptance of the invoicing, there's no written documentation on how the contractor is performing.
We basically covered this question when we answered your last question, where we said:
Open full Question Details
When the government “accepts” it certifies that we have done a reasonable inspection. Sometimes (e.g. commercial contract format and/or actions below the simplified acquisition threshold) the government does not conduct inspection, we rely on the contractor to do it. Then we reserve the right to conduct inspection after the fact or reserve the right to revoke final acceptance if the goods or services are later found to be non-conforming. The “acceptance” then authorizes the contractor to be paid (e.g. certify an invoice, etc.).
Back to your scenario: Contracts (or task orders) that don’t have a COR because the KO specifically decided “not to” designate one. [Note to other readers, a previous question answered when and how the KO could/should do this. If interested, search AAP for question ID 125230 o/a 16 Jun 2016.] Remember we said that if a KO does not delegate their responsibilities and requirements to a COR and/or DCMA, then they are on the hook for accomplishing everything.
See FAR 1.602-1(b) “No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.” And
FAR 1.602-2: “Contracting officers are responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships. In order to perform these responsibilities, contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment. Contracting officers shall…”
So, if FAR (or DFARS) Subpart 42.15, or 37.5, or AFI 64-124 (or anything else) needs to be complied with… then the KO is responsible for that. How they do it is really up to local policy and procedures.