The Pony Express: Delivering Feedback on Contract Performance

1

• The Pony Express Delivering Feedback on
  Contract Performance
• Moderator Julia Wise, OFPP or Cecelia Davis,
  GSA
• Speakers
• Patrick Bradfield, Department of Education
• Robert Best, National Institute of Health
• Alan Chvotkin, Professional Services Council

2
Learning Objectives

• Identify different contract monitoring techniques
  - Pat
• Understand quality assurance plans - Pat
• Learn how to assess and access past performance
  information and draft evaluations Robert
• Industrys perspective on the Delivery of Past
  Performance Assessments, Evaluations and Feedback
  - Alan

3
Performance Evaluations

• FAR Subpart 42.15 Past performance guidance
• Used for future source selection purposes
• Evaluates contractors conformance to contract
  requirements, schedules, control of cost,
  cooperative behavior, commitment to customer
  satisfaction, etc.
• Conducted annually.
• Input comes from the technical office,
  contracting office, and end-user of the products
  or service.
• Any past performance systems can be used.
• Past performance is retained 3 years after the
  completion of contract performance.

4
Performance Reviews

• Contract management performance reviews or
  assessments - keeps the project on course,
  measures performance levels.
• Reviews are conducted regularly - more than the
  annual "past performance" reviews required by
  regulation.
• For most contracts, monthly or bi-monthly
  performance reviews would be appropriate. More
  frequent meetings may be required.
• Acquisition Team especially the program manager
  should be involved in these reviews.

5
Past Performance InformationRoles and
Responsibility

• Acquisition planning
• 2. Award
• 3. Post Award - Contract Administration

6
Monitoring contract performance

• Methods used to monitor contract performance
  include contract reviews, meeting, visits to the
  contract site, inspection of the service or
  product required.
• Tools used to ensure the contractor performs
• Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
• Contract Quality assurance provisions that
  require the contractor to perform such as
• Inspection and Acceptance
• Warranty
• Guarantee
• Payment Withhold payment for performance
  issues
• Stop Work
• Termination for Convenience, Termination
  Default, etc.

7
Accessing Past Performance Information

• Past Performance Information Retrieval System
• (PPIRS) functions as the central warehouse
• for receipt of performance assessment
• reports from the following Federal
• performance evaluation collection systems
• PPIRS and the collection systems do
• provide access to evaluations, access that
• otherwise would be haphazard.

8
Past Performance Information Systems

• Federal regulations require that report cards be
  completed annually by customers during
• the life of the contract. PPIRS functions as the
  central warehouse for performance
• assessment reports received from the following
  Federal performance information
• Collection systems
• Contractor Performance System (CPS)
  http//cps.od.nih.gov/
• Totally automated system used by civilian
  agencies (Multiple Agency,
• Shared file system). Supports acquisition
  activities in all fity states and over
• 100 foreign countries. Supports evaluations on
  Research and Development,
• ADP, Architect and Engineering, Construction and
  Service and Supply
• contracts. Data collected on a contractors
  performance includes Quality of
• Product or Services, Cost Control, Timeliness of
  Performance and Business
• Practices.
• Past Performance Data Base (PPDB)
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  Past Performance Data Base.
• Tracks contractors performance on NASA
  contracts. No web site, but contact
• NASA Headquarters at 202-358-1279

9
Past Performance Information Systems

• Past Performance Information Management System
  (PPIMS) http//cpars.navy.mil/cparsfiles/ppims/pp
  imsnotify.htm
• PPIMS has been the Armys central respository for
  the collection and utilization of Army
• wide contractor Past Performance Information
  (PPI). Available to authorized
• Government personnel, PPIMS has been used to
  support both the Contracting
• Performance Review process and future award
  decisions. PPIMS also has been used by
• the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) to
  collect DISA contractors past
• performance information. Effective March 23,
  2007 PPIMS was no longer available
• for user data input and migration to CPARS is
  nearly complete. See the url above
• for more information on that transition.
• Architect-Engineer Contract Administration
  Support System (ACASS)
• http//cpars.navy.mil/acassmain.htm
• ACASS is a web-enabled application that supports
  the completion, distribution and retrieval of
  Architect
• Engineer (A-E) contract performance evaluations
  (DD Form 2631). ACASS is for Unclassified use
  only.
• Evaluations are based on objective facts and
  supported by contract management data, such as
  quality of
• A-E services by discipline, and assessments of
  the attributes of the engineering services as to
  accuracy,

10
Past Performance Information Systems

• Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System
  (CCASS)
• http//cpars.navy.mil/ccassmain.htm
• CCASS is a web-enabled application that supports
  the completion and retrieval
• of Construction contract performance evaluations
  (DD Form 2626). CCASS is
• for Unclassified use only. Evaluations are based
  on objective facts and
• supported by contract management data, such as
  contract performance elements that
• evaluate quality, timely performance, effective
  management and compliance with contract
• terms, labor standards and safe standards.
• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting
  System (CPARS)
• http//cpars.navy.mil/
• CPARS is a web-enabled application that collects
  and manages the library of automated
• CPARs. CPARS is for Unclassified use only. CPAR
  assesses a contractors performance
• and provides a record, both positive and
  negative, on a given contract during a specific
  period of time.
• Each is based on objective facts and supported by
  contract management data, such as cost
• performance reports, customer comments, quality
  reviews, technical interchange meetings,
  financial
• solvency assessments, construction/production
  management reviews, contractor operations
  reviews,
• functional performance evaluations, and earned
  contract incentives.

11
How to assess past performance

• What is put into an evaluation? Lets use the
  CPS format as an example.
• Numerical Ratings and Supporting Narrative on
• - Quality of Product or Services- Cost control-
  Timelines of Performance. - Business Practices
• - Comments on Subcontracts/Socioeconomic Goals -
  Comments on Key Personnel - Determination of
  Commitment to Customer Service
• Rating Scale
• - 0 Unsatisfactory - 1 Poor - 2 Fair - 3 Good
  - 4 Excellent - 5 Outstanding
• Note Mere use of scores is insufficient because
  scores can tend to be grouped more toward the
• middle of the scale. Narrative becomes
  essential to helping CO understand the rating,
  and to
• distinguishing among similar scores. Need
  partnership between CO and COTR to encourage and
• sustain a forthright narrative.
• Suggestion Ask COTR whether they would want to
  select that contractor again. If not, why not.
  If so,
• why. Use technical documents, correspondence,
  deliverables, site visit reports, meeting
  minutes, cost
• analyses, changes anything that has been done to
  monitor, assess, direct, and otherwise administer
• the contract. Ideally, a past performance
  evaluation should rely on the everyday activities
  of making
• sure the Government gets what it paid for.

12
How to use evaluations

• Before we talk about that, we have to ask if the
  systems give us what we need? Some shortcomings
  are
• PPIRS may be incomplete and inaccurate. It is
  only as good as the feeder systems. It would help
  if all agencies mandated use of a data collection
  system.
• Negative reports may be limited in number, and
  there is inconsistency in among rankings in the
  middle.
• Personal contact with COs and COTRs is limited in
  todays environment this can be a drawback.
• Past performance does not translate well to RD
  contracts.
• However, despite any shortcomings past
  performance is a key element in many source
  selections and will continue to be.

13
(No Transcript)
14
Industrys Perspective on the Delivery of
Contract Performance Feedback

• Past Performance Assessments are important and
  should be communicated frequently to the
  contractor.
• Past Performance Evaluations must be done
  annually.
• Leads to future business opportunities
• Helps to improve performance.
• Open and frequent communication with the
  contractor
• personnel is the key to success on your
  contracts.

15
Question and Answer Session