Abstract

Contingency contracting is a vital component of U.S. Army operations in deployed environments, enabling rapid acquisition of goods and services under unpredictable and often austere conditions. As military reliance on contractor support grows, Contingency Contracting Officers (CCOs) face mounting challenges related to legal compliance, ethical conduct, operational uncertainty, and stakeholder coordination. This paper explores the evolving landscape of Army contingency contracting, drawing on peer-reviewed literature and published government reports. It identifies key challenges and offers strategic perspectives to enhance contracting effectiveness and mission success.

Introduction

Contingency contracting refers to the process of acquiring goods, services, and construction from commercial sources in support of contingency operations (Haire et al., 2021). In the U.S. Army, this function is primarily executed by Contingency Contracting Officers (CCOs), who deploy alongside combat and support units to establish procurement capabilities in environments marked by instability, limited infrastructure, and evolving mission requirements. These operations may include combat missions, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and peacekeeping efforts.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has increasingly relied on contractor support to sustain global operations, particularly in theaters where military personnel and resources are constrained. As noted by the Defense Acquisition University (2023), contractors now provide a wide range of services, from food and laundry to IT and weapons system maintenance. This growing dependence underscores the need for agile, ethical, and mission-focused contracting practices that can adapt to the complexities of deployed environments.

Challenges in Deployed Contingency Contracting

One of the most significant challenges faced by CCOs in deployed environments is operational uncertainty. These settings are inherently unstable, and contracting officers may find themselves operating in bare bases with minimal infrastructure or in rapidly changing tactical situations. The maturity of the theater—whether it is an initial entry or a sustained operational hub—directly influences the flow of contracting authority and the feasibility of procurement actions. According to the Defense Contingency Contracting Handbook (2017), contingency contracting must be tailored to the operational phase and mission scope to remain effective.

Legal and ethical constraints also pose considerable difficulties. CCOs must navigate a complex legal framework that includes the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), and host-nation laws. Ethical challenges are particularly acute in foreign business cultures where practices such as kickbacks or gratuities may be expected but are strictly prohibited for U.S. personnel. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published in 2021 emphasized the need for improved documentation and oversight to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in contingency contracting. Maintaining ethical standards in environments where corruption may be prevalent requires vigilance and robust training.

Performance monitoring and accountability represent another area of concern. In contingency operations, traditional metrics may not adequately capture the full scope of contractor performance, especially when contracts support emergent needs such as medical services or infrastructure repair. Oversight mechanisms are often limited, and the fluid nature of mission objectives complicates efforts to evaluate outcomes. The GAO (2021) found that the DoD lacked consistent data on contractor personnel and contract execution, which hinders transparency and accountability.

Stakeholder coordination is also critical to the success of contingency contracting. CCOs must work closely with supported units, local vendors, joint forces, and coalition partners. Misalignment in expectations or communication can lead to delays, disputes, or mission degradation. Integration into the mission analysis process and early involvement in operational planning are essential. Army leadership must better support CCOs through training and procedural reforms to improve coordination and responsiveness across all levels of command (Barbaris & Callanan 2008; Rupkalvis, 2012; Haire et al., 2021).

Perspectives from Recent Operations

Operational Contract Support (OCS) has emerged as a strategic capability that enhances mission outcomes when executed effectively. Recent contingency operations, such as Operation United Assistance during the Ebola response and COVID-19 Task Forces, demonstrated the value of contractor support in providing combat services, logistics, and technical expertise. The DAU ACQuipedia notes that contractors are now integral to both frontline and rear-echelon operations, often filling skill gaps and enabling force scalability in ways that uniformed personnel alone cannot achieve.

The establishment of a contingency contracting office is often one of the first priorities for deployed CCOs. However, the focus should extend beyond physical setup to the delivery of contracting capability tailored to mission needs, operational duration, and available resources. CCOs must be empowered with decentralized authority and flexible tools to respond to mission demands in real time. This includes the ability to execute contracts quickly and adjust terms as operational conditions evolve (Haire et al., 2021).

Cross-cultural competence has also become increasingly important in contingency contracting. CCOs must understand local customs, business practices, and cultural sensitivities to build trust and avoid mistakes. Training in cross-cultural awareness is now recognized as essential for deployed contracting success. The Defense Contingency Contracting Handbook includes a dedicated chapter on cross-cultural competence and situational awareness, noting that cultural misalignment can undermine contract execution and damage vendor relationships. Effective communication and cultural fluency are therefore indispensable skills for contracting officers operating abroad.

Strategic Perspectives

Improving Army contingency contracting in deployed environments requires a multifaceted approach. Pre-deployment planning is essential, and CCOs should be integrated into mission planning processes and receive training on theater-specific conditions and vendor landscapes. This ensures that contracting efforts are aligned with operational goals from the outset.

Contract structures must be flexible enough to accommodate changing needs. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, contingency clauses, and performance-based incentives can provide the necessary adaptability. These mechanisms allow contracting officers to respond to evolving mission requirements without compromising legal or ethical standards.

Ethical safeguards must be reinforced through continuous training and the establishment of clear reporting mechanisms for suspected violations. Given the high-risk nature of deployed environments, maintaining integrity is paramount to mission success and public trust. Monitoring tools should be modernized to include mobile platforms, real-time dashboards, and local liaison officers who can provide on-the-ground insights. These tools enhance transparency and allow for more effective oversight of contractor performance.

Finally, stakeholder engagement must be prioritized. Collaboration with supported units, host-nation officials, and coalition partners ensures that contracting efforts are coherent, culturally appropriate, and strategically aligned. Building strong relationships across these groups is essential for achieving mission objectives and maintaining operational continuity.

Conclusion

Army contingency contracting in deployed environments is a dynamic and mission-critical function that demands agility, accountability, and cultural competence. CCOs must navigate a complex landscape of legal, ethical, and operational challenges while delivering timely and effective support to military operations. As contingency operations continue to evolve, too must the tools, training, and frameworks that empower contracting professionals. Continued investment in planning, cross-cultural competence, and adaptive contracting mechanisms will ensure that Army contracting remains a strategic asset in future deployments.

References

Barbaris, R., & Callanan, C. (2008). United States Army contingency contracting operations: Emerging roles, procedures, and challenges. Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved from https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/9b96efd4-be86-47f6-8595-c0c96d7b49d5/content

Defense Acquisition University. (2023). Contingency contracting and emergency acquisition. Defense Acquisition University. Retrieved August 1, 2025, from https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia-article/contingency-contracting-and-emergency-acquisition

Department of Defense. (2017). Defense contingency contracting handbook (Version 5). Department of Defense. Retrieved August 21, 2025, from https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/cp/cc/docs/ctrhb/DCC_Handbook_v.5_April2017.pdf

Government Accountability Office. (2021). Contingency contracting: DOD has taken steps to address commission recommendations. Government Accountability Office. Retrieved August 05, 2025, from https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/716982.pdf

Haire, J., Mason, T., Purcell Jr., F., & Maguire, S. (2021). Contingency contracting: Past, current and future uses by the U.S. government. Thompson Hine LLP & BAE Systems. Retrieved August 21, 2025, from https://www.acc.com/sites/default/files/2021-09/9.21.21%20Contingency.pdf

Rupkalvis, J. A. (2012). Contingency contracting operations: Past, present, and future. U.S. Army War College. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA561849.pdf