INDEX
A
ACASS. See Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System
Adjectival Rating Scheme for Assessing Performance Risk Based on Past Performance, 44
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), 169–170
Administrative Procedures Act, 170
ADRA. See Administrative Dispute Resolution Act
Aerospace Design and Fabrication, Inc. case study, 174–175, 178–179
agency POC, 92–93
appeals. See protests
Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS), 18, 87–88
assessing official representatives, 92
assessing officials, 92
assessing past performance write-ups
challenges overcome, 137–138
composition, 136
contract type, 138–139
dollar value, 142
firm capability, 139–140
importance, 133–135
key persons, 143–144
number of variables, 136–137
past performance questionnaire responses, 136
privity of contract, 142
program support, 144
recency, 140
relevancy, 140–141
solicitation critique example 148–157
statement of work, 141–142
award fee, 57–58
award or incentive plan, 41
award term, 57–58
B
Brooks Act, 15–16
buyer past performance cycle
Adjectival Rating Scheme for Assessing Performance Risk Based on Past Performance, 44
award fee, 57–58
award or incentive plan, 41
award term, 57–58
close-at-hand observation, 41–42
collection, 35–38
CSPARS reports, 42
Dun and Bradstreet Open Ratings Report, 39–40
email response, 40–41
evaluation, 43–48, 53
incentive determinations, 57–58
Information Collection Methods 36–37
overview, 34–35 (See buyer past performance cycle; seller past performance cycle
Past Performance Evaluation Rating and Definitions from FAR Table 42-1, 48–49
past performance questionnaire 39
phone interview, 40
program review, 42–43
proposal, 38–39
responsibility determination 55–56
Small Business Subcontracting Past Performance Evaluation Rating and Definitions from FAR Table 42-2, 50–52
source selection, 56–57
storage and retention, 54
use, 54–55
C
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 89
CCASS. See Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System
Central Contractor Registration system, 88
certificate of competency, 56
challenges of gathering past performance information, 1–2
changing nature of past performance
causes of change, 184–189
interest groups, 189–190
large buyers in other industries 190–191
overview, 183
Pass/Fail Performance Evaluation Scheme, 186–187
reasons for rising importance 183–184
specific disciplines, 189–190
client satisfaction, 8
Clinger-Cohen Act (1996), 16–17
close-at-hand observation, buyer past performance cycle, 41–42
collecting information, 7–8
collection
buyer past performance cycle 35–38
firm repositories, 99–100
methods, 36–37, 129–132
seller past performance cycle, 59
staff, 63
Competition in Contracting Act (1984), 15
composition, past performance write-ups, 136
Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), 18, 87–88
contract award, 35
contract performance, 35
contract type, past performance write-ups, 138–139
contracting officer representative (COR), 92
Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System Policy (2011), 20
contractor performance assessment report (CPAR), 8, 35, 93–94
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)
as primary government repository 87–89
award and incentive fee plans 41–42
blank form, 106–108
buyer past performance cycle, 42
data retention, 93
example, 109–112
importance, 13, 18, 41–42
information fields, 89–91
reports, 93–95
Response Protocol example 116–117
roles and permissions, 91–93
contractor representatives, 92
COR. See contracting officer representative
CPAR. See contractor performance assessment report
CPARS. See Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System
current practices
end user reviews, 198
improving, 196–197
increasing accessibility, 197
questioning, 194–195
shortening cycle times, 198–199
customer satisfaction surveys, 62–63
D
debriefings, 59–61
Defense Logistics Agency, 94–95
definitions, past performance, 7
Department of the Air Force, 94
Department of the Army, 94
Department of the Navy, 94
department POC, 92
disputes
Aerospace Design and Fabrication Inc. case study, 174–175 178–179
appeals to contracting officer 166–167
appeals to Court of Federal Claims, 169–170
appeals to Government Accountability Office, 168–169
appeals to level above contracting officer, 167–168
basis of appeals, 170–171
GTS Duratek, Inc. case history 172–173, 176
impact, 161
importance, 159–160
MAC’s General Contractor case history, 173–174, 177
past performance reference cases 180–181
responding to agency reviews 161–162
reviewing case histories, 171–172
timing, 160–161
venue, 162–165
documentation, 67–68
dollar value, past performance write-ups, 142
Dun and Bradstreet, 39–40. See also Open Ratings Report
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (2008), 19–20
E
Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System, 89
Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980, 170
evaluating past performance. See also assessing past performance write-ups
basic requirements, 122–123
buyers, 11–12
client perceptions, 125–126
collection methods, 129–132
contract specialist, 127
contracting officer, 126–127
contracting officer’s representative 128–129
contractor performance monitoring, 120–121
criteria, 8–9
factors, 11
importance, 119
relevance, 125
relevant experience, 9–11
requirement owner, 127–128
responsibility determination 119–120
rules, 123
Section M evaluation criteria 123–124
Section M evaluation scheme example, 125, 145–147
sellers, 12–14
source selection, 121–122
Excluded Parties List System, 88
experience, 5–6
F
FAPIIS. See Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
FAR. See Federal Acquisition Regulation
FCCX. See Federal Cloud Credential Exchange
FedBizOpps, 88
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 7, 20–22
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (1994), 16
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 54, 87–88
Federal Cloud Credential Exchange (FCCX), 89
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Sub-award Reporting System, 89
Federal Past Performance Information Repositories, 88
Federal Procurement Data System, 53, 89
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 15
Federal Torts Claims Act, 171
firm repositories
CPARS responses, 102–105
developing standard systems, 101–102
importance, 99
managing write-ups, 100–101
past performance information collection, 99–100
firms, evaluating history of, 5–6
focal points, 91
future of past performance
broader participation in reviews, 206
increased access to information, 205–206
increased analyzability, 203
increased digitization, 202–203
increased reviewer accountability, 204–205
increased standardization, 202–203
more interaction between parties, 206–207
robust reviewer identity, 203–204
shorter cycle times, 201–202
social responsibility metrics, 207
true indicator of future performance, 208
G
General Services Administration (GSA), 39, 88–89, 96
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
appeals, 168–169
close-at-hand observation, 42, 130
disagreements, 42, 163–165
past performance problems, 14
protest decisions, 45
GTS Duratek, Inc. case history, 172–173, 176
H
history
Brooks Act, 15–16
Clinger-Cohen Act (1996), 16–17
Competition in Contracting Act (1984), 15
Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System, 18
Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System Policy (2011), 20
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (2004), 18
Department of Defense Inspector General Report (2008), 19
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (2008), 19–20
FAR 42.15 Revision (2013), 20–22
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (1994), 16
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 15
gathering past performance information, 1–3
government use, 14–15
Office for Federal Procurement Policy Guide (2000), 17–18
timeline, 23–32
I
IAE. See Integrated Award Environment
incentive determinations, 57–58
Information Collection Methods, 36–37
information storage, 85–87. See also firm repositories; private repositories
Integrated Award Environment (IAE), 88–89
K
key persons, past performance write-ups, 143–144
L
lack of past performance information, 1
M
MAC’s General Contractor case history, 173–174, 177
management maturity model, 115
managing past performance
active CPARS management, 193
applying knowledge management principles, 193
being proactive, 192
importance, 191–192
improving performance, 193–194
objective customer satisfaction programs, 192
N
neutral rule, 45
O
Office for Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), 95
Office for Federal Procurement Policy Guide (2000), 17–18
OFPP. See Office for Federal Procurement Policy
Online Representations and Certifications Application, 88
Open Ratings
data retention, 98
example, 113–114
importance, 39–40
information fields, 97–98
overview, 95–97
reports, 98
roles and permissions, 98
P
Pass/Fail Performance Evaluation Scheme, 186–187
past performance cycle, 33–34
Past Performance Evaluation Rating and Definitions from FAR Table 42-1, 48–49
Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
CPARS reports, 42, 87–88
IAE initiative, 89
importance, 14, 20, 42
past performance questionnaire (PPQ), 8, 35, 39
Past Performance Ranking Tool, 133–134
performance, 5–6
performance evaluations, 5
phone interview, 40
point of contact (POC), 91
PPIRS. See Past Performance Information Retrieval System
PPQ. See past performance questionnaire
private repositories, past performance, 95–97
privity of contract, past performance write-ups, 142
problems with past performance, 14
program review, 42–43
proposals, 38–39
proposer capability information, 38
protests
Aerospace Design and Fabrication, Inc. case study, 174–175, 178–179
appeals to contracting officer, 166–167
appeals to Court of Federal Claims, 169–170
appeals to Government Accountability Office, 168–169
appeals to level above contracting officer, 167–168
basis of appeals, 170–171
GTS Duratek, Inc. case history, 172–173, 176
impact, 161
importance, 159–160
MAC’s General Contractor case history, 173–174, 177
past performance reference cases, 180–181
responding to agency reviews, 161–162
reviewing case histories, 171–172
timing, 160–161
venue, 162–165
R
recency, past performance write-ups, 140
relevance, 5, 140–141
responsibility determination, 55–56
retrospective performance, 57
reviewing officials, 92
S
SAM. See System for Award Management
seller past performance cycle
collection, 59
CSPARS reports, 62
customer satisfaction surveys, 62–63
debriefings, 59–61
improving documentation of past performance, 67–68
improving feedback, 66–67
improving performance, 65–66
improving proposals, 68
interpretation, 63–64
overview, 58–59
program reviews, 61–62
staff collection, 63
storage and retention, 65
use, 65
senior contractor representatives, 93
Small Business Subcontracting Past Performance Evaluation Rating and Definitions from FAR Table 42-2, 50–52
source selection, 56–57
statement of work, past performance write-ups, 141–142
storage and retention, 54, 65
storytelling
importance, 69–71
increasing understanding, 75–76, 82–84
providing context, 72–73
providing just the facts, 71–72, 77–79
showing impact, 73–75, 80–81
System for Award Management (SAM), 42, 88–89
T
timeline, past performance history, 23–32
Tucker Act, 170
U
U.S. Postal Service, 89
W
Wage Determinations On-Line, 89