Georgia Tech Procurement Assistance Center

CPARS.gov now official source for past performance information

By

The U.S. federal government has completed the merger of the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) with the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS.gov).  CPARS now serves as the federal report card system for prime contractors providing services and products to the U.S. federal government.

Government decision-makers now use CPARS to review contractors’ performance under previously awarded contracts.  Data points include requirements compliance, meeting deadlines, reporting processes, integrity and business ethics, pricing and invoicing, and customer-service processes.  These reviews often contain sensitive information and can also influence new contract awards, therefore, only authorized government personnel have access to these records, along with the specific awardee.  No records are available to the general public.

The contracts tracked in CPARS must be prime contracts and fall above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (now $250,000 base plus option years).

Subcontracts are not tracked in CPARS, however, the Small Business Administration is considering a process to create a pilot program to provide subcontractor performance ratings.  No updates from the SBA regarding the subcontractor program have been posted since April 2018 when the Subcontractor Past Performance Pilot Program was published in the Federal Register.

Continue reading at:  TargetGov

How to challenge a bad performance rating

By

While you might not be able to fight City Hall, you can fight a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System rating.  The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals recently confirmed it has jurisdiction to annul an inaccurate and unfair government evaluation of a contractor’s performance — a potent form of relief available to companies who believe the government has improperly rated them.

In a published opinion — Cameron Bell Corporation d/b/a Government Solutions Group, ASBCA No. 61856 (May 1, 2019) — the board said that while it cannot require the government to issue a specific rating, it can remand the matter to the contracting officer with instructions to redo the evaluation.

By regulation, companies have a right to rebut a negative evaluation of their performance in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, or CPARS.  A contractor’s rebuttal submission typically is due within 14 calendar days of the date the agency invites the contractor to respond.  If this proves unsuccessful, a contractor may challenge the CPARS rating by submitting a claim with the contracting officer under the Contract Disputes Act, or CDA.  Then, if the contracting officer denies the claim, the contractor can appeal the decision to an appropriate Board of Contract Appeals or the United States Court of Federal Claims.

That is precisely what the contractor did in Cameron Bell.  There, a contractor challenged a less-than satisfactory rating of its performance in a CDA claim.  After the contracting officer denied the claim, the contractor appealed to the ASBCA seeking various forms of relief, including injunctive relief, breach of contract damages, and a request that the board “return [the] matter to the government with guidance indicating that the government should have rated appellant satisfactory, or better.”

The government moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  The board denied the motion in part, finding that it has jurisdiction to “assess whether the contracting officer acted reasonably in rendering the disputed performance rating or was arbitrary and capricious and abused his discretion.”  The board also noted that, while it lacks authority to order the government to revise a CPARS rating, it “may remand to require the contracting officer to follow applicable regulations and provide [the contractor] a fair and accurate performance evaluation.”

Continue reading at:  National Defense Magazine

Why contractor past performance data is becoming both more, less valuable

By

When the General Services Administration released the $65 billion Alliant 2 governmentwide acquisition contract for IT services back in June 2016, it was one of the first major procurement efforts to put a premium on past performance.

As part of the self-scoring approach to Alliant 2, GSA determined that 40 percent of the evaluation points would be on how vendors have performed on previous and similar work with the government.  At the time, industry analysts praised GSA for building on this self-scoring approach.  Now three years later, the self-scoring approach where past performance is a significant evaluation factor has grown in popularity.

At the same time, vendors and federal procurement officials alike heed a common call that the current approach to obtaining past performance is problematic and needs to be rethought.

“As the government moves to buying more services and solutions, things are getting more subjective and you want to be able to do a better job of motivating contractors to do more,” said Jim Williams, a former federal executive with GSA, the IRS and the Homeland Security Department, and now a principal with Williams Consulting, LLC and an advisor for GovConRx.  “The forces are coming together to say vendor past performance is a valuable tool.  But it’s not working as it should because it’s too burdensome and not as accurate as it should be.  No one wants to throw it out.  We just want to fix it.”

Experts say the current system, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), takes too much time to fill out, lacks important details and isn’t as accurate as it needs to be.

“The time and effort to draft CPARS evaluations is too much, and with most agency contracting staffs pressed to do more with less, that gets pushed out further, especially if there is a need to justify ratings over satisfactory,” said Mike Smith, a former DHS director of strategic sourcing and now executive vice president at GovConRx.  “There needs to be some way to justify anything over satisfactory that is not so hard to track down all the information so it becomes less cumbersome.  Contractors also are not actively engaged in the documentation and support of the ratings.  That has to change too, especially as agencies are paying a lot more attention to ratings.  We have to figure out how to make sure past performance ratings are not done in haste.”

Smith said on average, depending on the type of procurement, it could take a contracting officer a few minutes to a few hours to write an in-depth CPARS review.

New data compiled by GovConRx shows the value of CPARS is dropping dramatically.

Continue reading at:  Federal News Network

ABSCA confirms contractors may challenge unfavorable CPARS ratings

By

While you might not be able to fight City Hall, you can fight your CPARS rating.  In a short opinion published May 1st, the ASBCA confirmed it has jurisdiction to annul an inaccurate and unfair government evaluation of a contractor’s performance.  Cameron Bell Corporation d/b/a Government Solutions Group, ASBCA No. 61856 (May 1, 2019).  Though the ASBCA cannot require the government to issue a specific rating, it can remand the matter to the contracting officer with instructions to redo the evaluation ─ a perhaps imperfect, yet still potent form of relief available to contractors who believe the government has improperly rated their contract performance.

By regulation, contractors are entitled to rebut a negative evaluation of their performance in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, or CPARS.  FAR 42.1503(d).  A contractor’s rebuttal submission typically is due within 14 calendar days of the date the agency invites the contractor to respond.  See id.  If this proves unsuccessful, a contractor may challenge the CPARS rating by submitting a claim with the contracting officer under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).  See, e.g., Cameron Bell, ASBCA No. 61856, 2019 WL 2067642 (May 1, 2019).  Then, if the contracting officer denies the claim, the contractor can appeal the decision to an appropriate Board of Contract Appeals or the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Continue reading at:  Inside Government Contracts

SBA seeks public comment on proposed subcontractor past performance pilot program

By

Past performance information is a key indicator of an offeror’s ability to successfully perform a contract and is required to be considered by agencies when making most types of contract awards. Many small businesses, however, get their entrance into government contracting through subcontracts to prime contractors. These first-tier small business subcontractors often have a difficult time providing verifiable past performance because they are outside of the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) process that provides that information for prime contractors.

The good news for first-tier small business subcontractors is that the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amended the Small Business Act to require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to implement a pilot program to establish past performance ratings for small business subcontractors. Under this program, a small business concern without a past performance rating as a prime contractor in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) may request a past performance rating in CPARS if the small business is a first-tier subcontractor under a covered Federal Government contract requiring a subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 19.702(a). Ratings of subcontractor performance can also be requested on subcontracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, or subcontracts for architecture-engineering services valued at $35,000 or more as provided in FAR 42.1502.

Keep reading this article at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=697778

See the proposed rules and how to submit comments by June 19, 2018 at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/04/20/2018-08330/information-collection-subcontractor-past-performance-pilot-program

Formal claim required to appeal negative performance evaluation

By

For federal contractors, it is not an exaggeration to say that performance evaluations are the lifeblood of the business.

A less-than-satisfactory evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) affects far more than just the agency’s assessment of performance on a particular project.  A negative evaluation follows a contractor around – impacting the ability to obtain future contracts due to the specter negative past performance ratings.

The good news for contractors is that the ability to challenge and – if successful – reverse negative CPARS evaluations is a quickly developing area of government contracting law.

The first step in any successful CPARS challenge involves meaningful participation in the evaluation process.  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 42.15 entitles contractors to submit comments and receive an agency review of a disputed performance evaluation.  Specifically, contractors are entitled to submit comments, rebuttal statements, and/or other information in response to the agency’s evaluation.  The agency must then review those comments at a level above the contracting officer and update the evaluation, if necessary.

Keep reading this article at: https://governmentcontracts.foxrothschild.com/2017/09/articles/contract-claims/cpars-challenge-primer-formal-claim-required-to-appeal-negative-performance-evaluation/

Government references didn’t complete past performance inquiries? ‘Too bad,’ says GAO

By

Federal contractors frequently find themselves in the position of needing to establish their past performance credentials to secure future contracts – the government’s form of a reference check. The government often performs these reference checks by requesting completed past performance questionnaires, or PPQs, which the government uses as an indicator of the offeror’s ability to perform a future contract.

But what happens when a contractor’s government point of contact fails to return a completed PPQ?  As a recent GAO decision demonstrates, if the solicitation requires offerors to return completed PPQs, the agency need not independently reach out to government officials who fail to complete those PPQs.

By way of background, FAR 15.304(c)(3)(i) requires a procuring agency to evaluate past performance in all source selections for negotiated competitive acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The government has many means at its disposal to gather past performance information, such as by considering information provided by the offeror in its proposal, and checking the Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System, commonly known as CPARS.

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/gaobidprotests/government-references-didnt-complete-ppqs-too-bad-says-gao/

Challenge to negative performance report is not a ‘protest’

By

A contractor’s attempt to challenge an adverse Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) was not a bid protest subject to the bid protest jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

CPARSIn a recent decision, the Court rejected a protester’s creative attempt to challenge a CPAR as part of a bid protest.  Instead, the Court held, a CPAR ordinarily must be challenged through the FAR’s claims and appeals processes–although the Court appeared to leave the door open to bid protest challenges in limited circumstances.

The Court’s decision in ITility, LLC v. United States, No. 15-237C (2016) involved a past performance evaluation ITility, LLC received from the U.S. Air Force under a program management support contract.  After various disputes arose, the Air Force issued a stop work order and allowed the period of performance to expire.  The Air Force subsequently issued an interim CPAR report concerning the contract.  The CPAR presumably rated ITility’s performance negatively (the actual rating is redacted from the Court’s decision).

Keep reading this article at: http://smallgovcon.com/u-s-court-of-federal-claims/cpar-challenge-wasnt-a-viable-protest-says-federal-court/

Rule would boost consideration of contractor past performance

By

A proposed rule published Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2013 would update the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to help agencies consider past performance of contractors in awarding new work while shortening the comment period available to affected firms. The industry appears receptive.

As required by the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) President Obama signed on Jan. 2, the Defense Department, the General Services Administration and NASA drafted a rule to allow data on contractor past performance to be added to two databases, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The rule would also give contractors 14 days to submit comments, rebuttals or additional information in the database, rather than the current 30 days.

“It is important for past performance information to be shared with source selection officials immediately, so that award decisions can be better informed and made in a more timely manner,” the proposed rule states. “Expediting the time allotted to contractors to respond to performance evaluations should improve communication between the contractor and the government, enable current information to be shared quickly throughout the government, and ultimately ensure the government does business with high performing contractors.”

Keep reading this article at: http://www.govexec.com/contracting/2013/08/rule-would-boost-consideration-contractor-past-performance/68294/?oref=govexec_today_nl

3 tips to maximize past performance

By

Almost every proposal you write has a requirement for information on past performance. The government uses this information to evaluate how well your company has performed on similar programs and expects your past performance to be a predictor of how well you will perform on the program you’re currently bidding.

Because past performance can be an important discriminator in the evaluation and selection process, there are some things you should know about how to write your past performance response.

Past performance versus past experience

Past performance comprises a set of specific contracts that you select to demonstrate how well your company, or your team, has performed on contracts that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to your current bid.

Past experience, which is sometimes confused with past performance, is about the broader issue of what experience and expertise the bidding organization has gained from all of its contract work and the work of its teammates.

Select contracts to demonstrate past performance

Past performance is all about relevancy and how well you performed the work you’re referencing. The government will consider these two factors together when developing your past-performance score — and both are important. However, performance is more important than relevancy. It is better to showcase your best-performing contracts and argue that they are relevant than to select contracts that are highly relevant and had poor performance.

Expect the government evaluator to ask your customers how well you did performing each contract. Typically, this happens via a formal past-performance questionnaire submission process and/or direct communication from the government evaluators to your customers. The government keeps two databases—the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)—to determine how well your company performs its contracts.

Government access is restricted to those individuals who are working on source selections, to include contractor responsibility determinations.

With the CPARS, companies can regularly review their own ratings for each evaluated contract, but cannot check ratings for other companies. In order to access PPIRS information, a contractor must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system and must have created a Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) in the CCR profile. Because past-performance ratings are such an important factor in proposal evaluations, every company should regularly review its CPARS ratings and challenge any evaluations they consider unfair.

Write your past performance summary

Each RFP will be very prescriptive about the information you need to provide when you describe each past-performance contract. While it may seem obvious, you really do need to provide all the requested information in order to submit a “compliant” proposal (see my Washington Technology article, “6 reasons your proposals fail,” October 2011).

You’ll be asked to provide information to show contract relevance, so keep this in mind when you write your response. Measures of relevance include contract size, scope and complexity, as well as the technical scope of work performed.

The description of the work is where you can stand out. Write your response to not only show that you performed relevant work — which every bidder does — but that you also had specific accomplishments that were meaningful to the government. Don’t just parrot back the statement of work from the contract you are citing. Focus on accomplishments because it’s these achievements that can make your contract past performance stand out from the crowd.

Most importantly, make sure you have outstanding past performance on the contracts you present. Confirm this information with your customers and with your teammates’ customers before you submit your proposal.

The government will read what you write, and they will validate the content. A good writer can present your past performance in a credible, compelling way, but if the underlying performance is less than desirable, it’s hard to overcome the truth.

About the Author: Bob Lohfeld is the chief executive officer of the Lohfeld Consulting Group. This article was published by Washington Technology on Feb. 10, 2012 at http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2012/01/30/insights-lohfeld.aspx?s=wtdaily_130212.

Contracting News

Read More

Contracting Tips

Read More

GTPAC News

Read More

Georgia Tech News

Read More