7. Property Management

Comment: A respondent stated that the proposed change to require administrative contracting officer (ACO) determination of property management system compliance is inconsistent with ACO determinations of other business systems. According to the respondent, except for property management, all business systems proposed for ACO determination of acceptability are reviewed by DCAA functional specialists outside of the DCMA or Program Office organizational structures, or by functional specialists who do not have a defined career field certification standard and warrant/letter of appointment. In those instances, functional specialist recommendations are advisory and the ACO determination of system status is necessary. The respondent stated that property management system compliance differs from the system status determinations cited in the proposed change in that property administrator certification/qualification requirements are identified under the unique Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) career field certification standard for industrial contract property management and they are issued letters of appointment, which requires them to routinely perform their duties as warranted contracting officers and communicate system status determinations. According to the respondent, ACO responsibility for determinations of property management system compliance does not support consistent treatment of contractors assigned for DCMA administration. The respondent noted that the DCMA Centers concept was established when it was found that certain specialty functions such as property, plant clearance, terminations, transportation, etc., suffered declines in communications and technical expertise due to lack of functional supervision. Within DCMA, infrastructure and tools to support consistency in property management reside in the DCMA Business Centers, not with the Chief Operating Officer/Chief Management Officer. Government Accountability Office Standards require performance of duties by appropriate, trained personnel. The respondent suggested that ACOs do not have the appropriate competencies (knowledge, skills, and abilities) to perform this function.

Response: DAWIA requirements for the industrial property management specialist workforce do not alter, and are not inconsistent with DFARS requirements for contracting officers to make determinations regarding a contractor's business system approval or disapproval. This responsibility exists apart from DAWIA requirements for acquisition personnel and regardless of agency processes for formally appointing individuals as property administrators or plant clearance officers. The DFARS rule does not contemplate or require contracting officers to have technical expertise in each of the six identified business systems. Contracting officers will continue to rely on functional specialists to perform the necessary contractor systems reviews as they always have. DCMA's "Center" concept is not universal to all of DCMA property operations. For example, a number of property administrators and plant clearance officers do not report operationally to the property center (now referred to as the property "group"), and instead report directly to DCMA International. DFARS 245.105 is clear that Government property administrators are responsible for providing recommendations and reporting system deficiencies to the cognizant contracting officer, including recommendations regarding contractor property management system approval or disapproval. However, the authority for a determination of system approval or disapproval shall remain with the cognizant contracting officer who is also responsible for applying a payment withhold for disapproved business systems in accordance with DFARS 252.242-7005, Contractor Business Systems.