As the reference is a few years old, I wanted to ask you if there are any more current but also authoritive guidelines from the Navy or DOD for terms like COR, COTR or TA, PCO, appointment letter formats, etc.?
There has also been some consdieratino to doing away from the use of the term technical rep in favor of the term "Accountable Officer" when validating contract deverables on invoices and wehn describing the function of providing technical feedback to COE on contractor performance. Do you think this term is as good as using TA or COTR, and if not, why not?
In my opinion, you should do away with the term accountable officer , COTR, TA, ACOR, PCOR, QA Assist, TAR and the 40 plus crazy names and acronyms that the various military services have made up for an individual who is delegated by the Contracting Officer to help do any pre or post award effort. All new training and certification programs and soon to released DODI use the term COR. All of these various people need minimal training on contracting concepts and need to be given some guidance from their contracting officer. If they know they are a COR, at least then the soon to be released DOD instruction on COR, the new COR Tracking Tool Guidance, the new COR Training and Certification program will clearly apply to them - no confusion. Of course please look at DFARS and PGI 201.602-2 to get information about COR files and designation. Unfortunately the FAR has just released an interim rule adding a new definition of COR at FAR 2.1. It includes COTR in the definition. You should look at that definition, although it could change, based on comments, as the rules goes from interim to final.
BTW, the Air Force has been calling all their CORS, Quality Assurance Evaluators - nothing to do with the trained QA specilists. They are finally switching to just calling a COR a COR. I'd love to see NAVSUP do the same.
Your Navy representative all the COR panels and writing policy is Robert.f.Johnson@navy.mil