Why Should The Army's Reliance On Contract Support Continue

The Army`s reliance on contract support should continue because contractors fill capability gaps within the Army`s structure. In multifaceted operations contractors provide the Army with flexibility and operational reach that help accomplish worldwide operations. As early as the Revolutionary War the Army has relied on contract support to support operations. Over the years the requirement for contracted support has increased making the Army more dependent on contractors to support its mission. The effects of the recent budget cuts reduced the number of contractors the Army uses to support operations. By reducing the number of contractors the Army hopes to decrease its operating budget but this action will create capability gaps within the Army.
During my deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I was able to witness the positive and negative aspects of contract support. Contracting support is beneficial to the Army`s needs but more scrutiny is needed for contract accuracy and COR training. Contractors fill a variety of roles and providing specialized skills, training, and equipment necessary to meet Army requirements. The Army`s Contracting Officer Representative (COR) is in charge of ensuring satisfactory performance by contracted employees, but due to poorly written contract or lack of supervision there are still performance gaps. Congress needs to set a standard budget within the Army that allows for a balance between Soldiers and contractors allowing them to complete worldwide operations. Trained Army Soldiers are able to fill some capability gaps caused by budget cuts, but the Army still need contractors to support operations. The expertise and special equipment provided by contractors is critical to the success of mission requirement and flexibility of the Army.