How long are past performance ratings utilized

Evaluations used in determining award or incentive fee payments may also be used to satisfy the requirements of this subpart. A copy of the annual or final past performance evaluation shall be provided to the contractor as soon as it is finalized. These evaluations, including any contractor-submitted information with indication whether agency review is pending , become available for source selection officials not later than 14 days after the date on which the contractor is notified of the evaluation's availability for comment.

The Government shall update CPARS with any contractor comments provided after 14 days, as well as any subsequent agency review of comments received. Past performance evaluations for classified contracts and special access programs shall not be reported in CPARS, but will be reported as stated in this subpart and in accordance with agency procedures.

Agencies shall ensure that appropriate management and technical controls are in place to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to the data and the information safeguarded in accordance with The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the Government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

To justify Marginal performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. A Marginal rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency e. Instead, FAR Is there an industry-preferred method for obtaining a CPARS rating to vet potential teaming or joint venture partners? For example, according to CPARS Guidance, in evaluating contract management, assessing officials are supposed to 1 address the timeliness of awards to subcontractors and management of subcontractors, including subcontract costs and 2 consider efforts taken to ensure early identification of subcontract problems and the timely application of corporate resources to preclude subcontract problems from impacting overall prime contractor performance.

CPARS ratings must also discuss subcontractors if the prime contract includes a subcontracting plan. According to FAR A recording of our webinar is available here , and slides are available here. See more ». This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks.

Marginal 2. Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has submitted minimal corrective actions, if any. Unsatisfactory 1.

Performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely or cost effective manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem s for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. It is important to maintain a record, on the contractor performance report form, of the major subcontractors and any team or joint venture partners on the contract.

This is a listing of the firms participating, the work they are responsible for if segregable for team or joint venture partners , and the key personnel. As the Government only has privity of contract with the prime contractor, subcontractors teams and joint venture partners should not be given a separate rating.

Comments on the performance of these firms will be reflected in the ratings for the prime. Listing these firms allows them to cite the contract for past performance purposes in proposals for future work either as prime contractors or as subcontractors or other partners.

Source selection teams may review the assessment to determine the ratings given for the work for which these firms were responsible. Because the past performance rating given by the source selection team would not have been discussed with these firms, Contracting Officers must ensure the contractor has an opportunity to comment on the rating before including it in the source selection process.

This process will reduce the number of firms that do not have a relevant past performance history in the source selection. While the ultimate conclusion on the performance assessment is a decision of the contracting agency, the FAR provides for contractor comment. Upon completion of the initial assessment by the program and contracting office, the assessment should be signed by the program office person most familiar with the contractor's performance and initialed by the Contracting Officer.

The Contracting Officer should sign the final assessments. As soon as practicable after the form is signed, and ordinarily within a day, it should be sent to the contractor for comments.

The required turnaround time for contractor response may not be less than thirty days see FAR Contracting Officers may extend the response period as warranted. If the contractor fails to provide a response by the established deadline, the Contracting Officer should call the contractor and initiate discussions on the performance and request a written reply. If all attempts fail, then the Government's comments can stand alone. If the contractor submits a rebuttal for any or all of the ratings and an agreement on the ratings cannot be reached by the contractor, the Contracting Officer and lead assessor, the contractor may seek review at least one level above the Contracting Officer, as prescribed by the agency see FAR In these cases, such effort should require a face-to-fact meeting between the parties.

The contractor's statement and agency review must be attached to the performance report and must be provided to source selection officials requesting a reference check. When the Government has completed its review of the contractor's comments, but in no case later than the insertion of the assessment into an automated PPI System or other agency system, the Contracting Officer must send a copy of the completed assessment to the contractor.

The completed assessments, including any contractor response or rebuttal, and agency reviews above the Contracting Officer, should be filed in the contract file, in a separate file, or automated database where they can be readily accessible by contracting office personnel. Automated databases should be accessible by source selection teams in other agencies through use of a secure system. Interim assessments should be retained for the duration of the contract and included with the final assessment in the file.

The interim assessment allows source selection teams to analyze performance trends during the contract. Assessments may not be retained to provide source selection information for longer than three years after completion of contract performance [2].

Since contractor assessments may be used to support future award decisions, FAR The Government acquisition team program office, contracting, and end user must work closely with the contractor to obtain our goal of satisfying the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service.

The Contracting Officer should communicate often with the contractor, starting with a good post award conference. This part of the process ensures that everyone has the same vision of successful performance. All should read the contract and clearly establish the Government's expectations.

Everyone should understand how past performance information will be recorded. Status meetings should be planned at least quarterly on large contracts. This process applies to smaller contracts as well, adjusting the meeting frequency to match the relative complexity of the contract requirement. Contracting Officers are also encouraged to have an open door policy that allows contractors to voluntarily discuss performance problems as they arise.

The Naval Undersea Warfare Center has seen the effects of this Best Practice in the reactions of contractor and government employees in administration of current contracts.

The greatest benefit is the improvement in communication both between the Government and the contractor and within the Government. Contractor managers are initiating discussion of performance expectations and achievements with Government personnel.

Officials of the smaller and medium sized companies in industries with intense competition are especially concerned about Past Performance rating information which will affect future contract awards. Often they do not consider a "Satisfactory" rating acceptable and expect their contract managers to achieve "Very Good" or "Exceptional" ratings.

Remember --the goal is excellent contract performance that provides products or services at the best value for the taxpayer's dollar!

This goal can't be achieved unless the acquisition team does some homework:. However, agencies traditionally have considered it as an aspect of contractor responsibility. A prospective contractor must have a satisfactory performance record in order to do business with the Government see FAR 9.

This helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on contracts with nonresponsible contractors. Past performance can and should be used to do more than just help the Government decide whether a contractor is capable of performing.

The Government must also compare the past track records of competing offerors to help identify which one offers the best relative value in order to get the best deal for the taxpayer. Using past performance as an evaluation factor to rank an otherwise responsible contractor for award of a contract is not, therefore, part of the responsibility determination.

Responsibility is a broad concept that addresses whether an offeror has the capability to perform a particular contract based upon an analysis of many areas including financial resources, operational controls, technical skills, quality assurances, compliance with Government laws, and past performance.

Referral to the SBA may be necessary if a small business is eliminated from the competitive range solely on the basis of past performance. SBA referral is not required as long as the use of past performance information requires a comparative assessment with other evaluation factors and not as a pass or fail decision. The comparative assessment of past performance information is separate from a responsibility determination required by the FAR.

On the other hand, a comparative past performance evaluation conducted using the tradeoff process seeks to identify the degree of risk associated with each competing offeror. Emphasis in this chapter is placed on using current and past performance information primarily available from Government-wide and Agency-wide databases, to help expedite and streamline the evaluation process. If such information is not readily available from these databases, then seek to gather it from other government entities and private sector sources.

In using past performance as a source selection factor, there are primarily three key points which should be conveyed in the solicitation Sections L and M , and are discussed in more detail later in this chapter:.

Past performance evaluations become distinct discriminators when a best value award is made. Tradeoffs among cost or price, and non-cost factors and subfactors permit the Government to accept other than the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. In accordance with FAR Quality may be evaluated through past performance. The Contracting Officer has the full flexibility to award on these two factors alone when determined appropriate and consistent with the FAR.

The acquisition team should take advantage of synergy between past performance and other critical evaluation factors. For example, the management plan could be replaced by a past performance evaluation that focuses on management effectiveness. The acquisition team should determine the relative rank or weight to place on past performance during the acquisition planning phase, and the type or kind of past performance that could be considered similar or relevant to the pending procurement.

For instance, the source selection team may know that all contractors under the most recent 5 to 10 contracts for similar requirements had excellent performance or market research may reveal that prospective offerors have very similar records of successful past performance. There may be procurements where past performance is not a meaningful discriminator among prospective offerors, and therefore, should be a relatively less important source selection factor in those cases. Agency officials may assign any weight or relative importance to past performance compared to any other evaluation factor, and have broad discretion regarding the source and type of past performance information to be included in the evaluation.

However, it is recommended that the weight assigned to past performance be at least 25 percent of the total evaluation; or, equal to the other non-cost evaluation factors to ensure significant consideration is given to past performance. It is good to involve industry early to help identify and resolve concerns regarding the approach to assessing past performance information see FAR Early communications could consist of meetings with prospective offerors via presolicitation conferences or sending out requests for information, draft solicitations, or advertising in trade publications.

These are all useful market research tools for obtaining preliminary information from industry, or familiarizing the source selection team with the nuances of a particular business or industry, that will ultimately help the team develop an evaluation plan and Sections L and M of the solicitation. The key to successful use of past performance — and with any other evaluation factor — in the source selection process is the establishment of a clear relationship between the statement of work SOW , Section L instructions to offerors and Section M evaluation criteria.

The factors chosen for evaluation must track back to the requirements in the SOW. They should be reasonable, logical, and coherent. Accordingly, Section L and Section M should be clear with respect to what past performance information the Government will evaluate and how it will be ranked or weighted. Past performance information that is not important to the current acquisition should not be included.

Consider the following when developing proposal submission requirements. See FAR Tailor the requirements to reflect the complexity of the procurement, and the relative importance of past performance and any of its subfactors to that procurement. Ask offerors for a list of references for on-going contracts or contracts completed not more than 3 years ago that demonstrates performance relevant to the solicitation performance requirements.

Keep the number of references requested to as few as possible to give an accurate reflection of past performance. We recommend 5 to 10 references as the norm, with more than 15 to be a seldom occurrence. FAR For contracts where there are lots of actions and many contractors provide the products or services, a shorter period may be appropriate. It is best to request the most recent references, many times this would mean limiting references to 1 or 2 years back.

All relevant contracts performed during the identified period, or the last "X" relevant contracts performed by the entity within the identified period should be sought. Provide potential offerors the opportunity to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts.

Limit this section to the discussion of problems and corrective actions taken. It is not necessary or efficient to burden the process by asking that the contractor prepare a description of its past performance history. The references will inform the source selection team of the contractor experience and performance. Inform potential offerors that past performance information on work for State and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontracts that is similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated equally with similar Federal contracts.

This will help ensure that firms new to the Federal process are given a fair opportunity to compete. Remind potential offerors that they may submit information on key personnel, major subcontractors, work performed as part of a team or joint venture, and other previous reincarnation of its current organization. This will allow most firms without prime contract history to provide past performance information.

This will reduce the cases of neutral past performance ratings. Past performance information is proprietary source selection information. Therefore, Section L should explain that the Government will only discuss past performance information directly with the prospective prime or sub-contractor that is being reviewed.

Rely on existing documentation from Federal systems or other systems to the maximum possible extent. This will expedite and streamline the source evaluation process significantly. If adequate documentation is not readily available Government evaluations not completed, State and Local governments and private sector references , then a brief survey with follow up calls, or phone interviews should be used to verify past performance.

It is strongly recommended that the survey be no longer than pages and prior contact be made with the cognizant officials before sending out the survey. Experience shows that long surveys are not returned timely if returned at all , which slows down the evaluation process. If a survey is to be used include a copy in the solicitation. You could use the same format in Appendix 1 for the survey. It is important to ask for at least two references on each non-Federal reference.

There is considerable concern that there will be a tendency for inflated rating from references if the name of the person providing the rating is revealed to the offeror. Section L should include a statement that the Government may use past performance information obtained from other than the sources identified by the offeror and that the information obtained will be used for both the responsibility determination and the best value decision.

Where large, multi-function firms are likely to submit a proposal, ask for references only on work done by the segment of the firm division, group, unit , not the firm in general. If the source selection team expects a large volume of proposals, the solicitation may request early submission of the past performance volume with the rest of the proposal to follow at a later date. This practice allows more time to conduct a thorough review of the past performance information.

Do not ask the offeror to obtain replies from listed references and submit them to the Contracting Officer by a certain date. Section M of the solicitation contains the evaluation factors and subfactors, and their relative importance with weights if appropriate. This section is very important to offerors, and should be clear and consistent with the instructions provided in Section L.

The Government should describe the approach for evaluating past performance in this section, including offerors with no relevant performance history. Consider the following when drafting the past performance evaluation factor:. The past performance factor should be distinct and identifiable in order to reduce the chances of its impact being lost within other factors and to ease the evaluation process.

The key is to not dilute the importance or impact of past performance when determining the best value contractor. Record Steel , 62 Fed. The CDA itself does not define "claim," nor did the contract in question. The FAR, however, defines a "claim" as "written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain, the adjustment or interpretation of contract terms, or other relief arising under or relating to the contract.

However, a subsequent decision of the Court of Federal Claims distinguished between performance evaluations and PPIRS entries, finding that, while contractors are entitled by the FAR to a "fair and accurate" performance evaluation, they are not similarly entitled to a "properly formatted PPIRS entry" since the relevant regulations and policy guidelines "do not address the manner in which a PPIRS entry is displayed or formatted. This decision also suggested that final Contractor Performance Assessment Reports CPARs are not final decisions of the contracting officer for purposes of the CDA because they are issued by a reviewing official, who is above the contracting officer, not the contracting officer.

However, while only final decisions of the contracting officer are generally disputable, the plaintiff's claim survived because, assuming the reviewing official is seen as issuing the performance evaluation, the contracting officer issues no decision, and the contracting officer is otherwise required by the CDA to issue a decision "within a reasonable time," or the claim is deemed denied.

BLR Group , 84 Fed. TLT Constr. See also Aim Constr. Versar, Inc. This reliance on the "implied Colonna's Shipyard, Inc. According to the board, the initial case involving a past performance evaluation found only that the issuance of a performance evaluation , per se , did not constitute a claim. The board in Colonna's Shipyard also noted that a subsequent case found that the board had jurisdiction when a performance rating claim is based upon a contract's disputed terms.

See Sundt Construction, Inc. The contractor here also noted that the government had an implied duty to produce an unbiased and accurate performance evaluation, but the board did not address this issue. A December 9, , decision in this case had found that the court had jurisdiction over the contractor's challenge to its performance evaluation on the same grounds discussed in Record Steel.

See 85 Fed. Todd Constr. Even if the Court could say 'the performance evaluation should be set aside,' but had no power to require any entity to take any action on that conclusion, the declaratory relief would be meaningless.

In so finding, the court distinguished prior cases, where it had granted declaratory relief, from the present case by characterizing the prior cases as involving "live disputes" of the "yes" or "no" sort, where "the consequences flowing from [the court's] answer did not require further intervention from a court or board.

United States , 63 Fed. United States , F. See 28 U. In its decision, the court granted Todd Construction the right to amend its complaint, which the court had characterized as "not contain[ing] sufficient factual allegations to suggest entitlement to remand," in light of the recent decisions by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic Corp. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Subsequently, in , the court found that revised complaint failed to state a basis on which relief could be granted.

See Todd Constr. United States, 94 Fed. Defense agencies were first authorized to conduct negotiated procurements in certain circumstances in Armed Services Procurement Act, P. Civilian agencies received similar authorization in This authority was subsequently expanded when Congress enacted the Competition in Contracting Act of See P.

However, prior experience can be distinguished from past performance, and this provision was repealed by FASA. See infra note ; P. Dep't of Defense, Gen.

The requirement was phased in, with procurements with higher values being subject to the requirement sooner than those with lower values. See also Steven Kelman, Procurement and Public Management: The Fear of Discretion and the Quality of Government Performance 40 quoting a government employee as saying "We deal with written lies," when describing his agency's reliance on contractors' technical proposals when making source selection decisions.

The FAR, however, views past performance information as "one indicator of an offeror's ability to perform the contract successfully. Kelman was the administrator of OFPP during the mids. See infra notes to and accompanying text. Additionally, Subpart Additionally, when the solicitation involves "bundling," agencies' evaluation of past performance must assess the offeror's performance in meeting goals in any subcontracting plans incorporated in prior contracts. Although the factors and subfactors considered must relate to the procurement, contractors' ability to challenge agencies' use of allegedly improper factors is limited by the deference that judicial and administrative tribunals give to agencies' selection of evaluation criteria.

See also Brican Inc. See also Dorado Services, B Agencies are encouraged to consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform "major or critical" aspects of the work, but are not required to do so.

Any such consideration must, however, be consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Int'l LLC, B November 3, finding that the agency had improperly credited the awardee with past experience it had earned through a joint venture because the way in which such experience was credited was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. Certain other evaluation factors must be used in specific circumstances.

For example, the extent of proposed subcontracting with small businesses must be an evaluation factor for contracts that involve bundling and offer a significant opportunity for subcontracting. See Guide to Best Practices, supra note 14 , at Agencies were not required to abide by this guidance, however.

It should also be noted that agencies evaluating past performance often rate it using broad descriptors e. Additionally, vendors' past performance is considered only in relation to that of the other vendors who submitted offers, not in the abstract. Thus, a company whose past performance has been less than stellar, but does not result in a nonresponsibility determination or exclusion, could be selected for award if the past performance of the other offerors was equally or more problematic.

United States, 45 Fed. The allegedly poor performance by the awardee in Contrack had also been the subject of news coverage and a report by the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General. Absent such coverage or reports, however, it is unclear how a protester would know of potentially adverse performance evaluations contained in PPIRS or other agency sources given the restrictions on access to source selection information.

See Michael R. One study of bid protests conducted in the s found that GAO had sustained only 13 out of protests challenging agencies' use of past performance information in the period between December and May This study does not appear to have been updated or replicated.

But see Arora Group, B September 14, recognizing a bidder whose proposal was ranked fifth as an interested party only because its protest challenged the agency's application of the evaluation criteria in general and, if successful, could have placed the contractor in line for the award.

It should also be noted that the focus of the protest is upon the determinations of the contracting officer who made the source selection decision, not that of any contracting officer who previously gave an offeror a poor performance evaluation. See supra note 41 and accompanying text.

Compare Dorado Services, B See also Truetech, Inc. Software Eng'g Servs. United States, 85 Fed. Offerors' experience, which is akin to past performance, is sometimes also considered as a separate evaluation factor, although agencies are generally not required to give offerors an opportunity to address adverse information regarding their prior experience through clarifications, communications, or discussions.