Why Most Contractors Approach the Contracting Officer Incorrectly
One of the fastest ways to signal inexperience in the federal marketplace is treating the Contracting Officer (CO) as the primary relationship manager for a program.
It happens constantly.
Contractors route capability introductions directly to the CO. Program updates are sent through acquisition channels instead of operational leadership. Technical questions are elevated to the CO before engaging the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or program office. In many cases, contractors default to the CO for virtually every interaction involving the contract.
From the Government side, that approach is often counterproductive.
The CO plays a critical role in the acquisition process, but they are not typically the operational center of the program. Contractors who misunderstand that distinction frequently create communication bottlenecks, unnecessary escalation, and avoidable frustration.
The CO’s Responsibility Is Contractual — Not Programmatic
The Contracting Officer is responsible for the contractual side of the acquisition.
That includes:
Contract execution
Regulatory compliance
Funding and contractual authority
Modifications
Acquisition strategy implementation
Contract administration decisions
The CO ensures the Government’s contractual interests are protected and that the acquisition remains compliant with applicable regulations and authorities.
What the CO generally does not own is day-to-day technical execution or operational coordination.
That distinction matters more than many contractors realize.
When contractors continually bypass the program office and route operational engagement through acquisition channels, the interaction often stalls immediately. The response is typically predictable:
“Please coordinate with the COR.”
Or:
“Please continue monitoring for updates.”
At that point, the contractor has not accelerated anything. In many cases, they have simply inserted unnecessary process friction into the communication chain.
The Program Office Drives the Requirement
In most federal environments, the actual mission need originates within the program office.
The program team typically understands:
Operational priorities
Technical requirements
Performance concerns
Mission impacts
End-user needs
Capability gaps
The COR often serves as the bridge between the contractor and that operational environment.
As a result, contractors who build strong, professional relationships with the program side of the house tend to operate far more effectively than contractors who rely exclusively on acquisition channels.
This is particularly true in:
Research and development environments
Technical service contracts
Emerging technology acquisitions
Agile or evolving requirements
Operational support programs
The program office is usually where meaningful technical dialogue and mission alignment occur.
What Contractors Often Misinterpret
Many contractors mistakenly assume that elevating communication directly to the CO demonstrates seriousness, visibility, or strategic engagement.
In reality, it often signals a misunderstanding of how federal acquisition functions operationally.
From the Government perspective, repeatedly defaulting to the CO for matters that belong at the program level can create several concerns:
The contractor may not understand acquisition roles and responsibilities
Communication channels may become inefficient
Program personnel may be bypassed unnecessarily
Acquisition staff may become overloaded with issues outside their lane
Experienced contractors understand that effective federal engagement is not about escalating every interaction upward. It is about understanding where decisions are actually made and where coordination is operationally appropriate.
Effective Contractors Understand the Relationship Structure
Strong contractors know how to navigate both acquisition and program environments professionally.
They understand:
The CO owns contractual authority
The COR and program office manage operational oversight
Not every issue belongs in acquisition channels
Technical engagement should generally begin with the program side unless contractual authority is required
That does not diminish the importance of the CO. Quite the opposite.
The CO remains one of the most important figures in the acquisition process. But contractors who treat the CO as the default point of contact for all engagement often misunderstand how federal programs actually function day to day.
If the goal is to advance the effort, improve communication, and operate effectively within the contract environment, the focus should first be on the program.
Not the CO.
About the Author
Aleyson Bickley is a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Contracting Officer and the Founder of Bickley Group LLC, where she advises companies on federal procurement strategy, SBIR/STTR, contract lifecycle management, and complex acquisition environments.
