<div class="description">
<p>Contingencies such as regional conflicts, humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, or international or domestic disaster relief missions dictate the immediate deployment of military forces. This rapid deployment of Service members and other military assets requires concurrent deployment of supporting assets such as Contingency Contracting Officers (CCOs). The purpose of this research was to detail and compare the contingency contracting establishments of the Air Force, Army, Navy/Marine Corps, and Defense Contract Management Agency. The thesis compares and contrasts the regulations governing the contingency contracting operations, the organization structure, contingency contracting support plans, and the training requirements and duties of CCOs of the aforementioned components. All components have adequate structures in place for contingency contracting. However, the research provides several conclusions and recommendations on how the Services could conduct contingency contracting operations more efficiently. Recommendations include the establishment of a contingency contracting chief within the Marine Corps, scenario-based field training within Department of Defense and the Services, and tailored pre- deployment training within each Service. As the Services continuously redefine their missions, they must adapt all subordinate units and organizations to ensure personnel have the training and equipment to meet any contingency.
</p>
<br>Subjects: contingency; contracting; contingency contracting</div>
<div class="fn value">
McMillon, Chester L.</div>
Internet Archive identifier