For most of us, the first thing that comes to mind is the grade of a “C.” If you received a “C” in high school, your parents probably asked you what happened, as if satisfactory wasn’t good enough. Of course, there are some of us in certain subjects, say math, where a “C” was excellent.
But for the most part, getting a “C” in many households was unacceptable.
That word “satisfactory” is at the crux of what is wrong with the Contractor Performance Assessment Retrieval System (CPARS).
Too many contracting officers are saying a vendor’s performance is satisfactory for two main reasons: A lack of time to explain why the contractor was outstanding or exceptional, and to avoid any lengthy back-and-forth if a rating is below average or poor.
But as Greg Rothwell, the former Department of Homeland Security’s chief procurement officer, said at a recent event on CPARS, “If you are a vendor, getting a satisfactory kills you.”
This is because contractors and contracting officers should be using CPARS as one way to differentiate themselves from their competition. But if everyone is rated “satisfactory,” then CPARS loses most of its value.
Not everyone believes earning a satisfactory rating is a killer.
Continue reading at: Federal News Network