Survey for Evaluations: The Unintended Consequences in the Use of Past Performance Surveys or Questionnaires

Transcription

1 Survey for Evaluations: The Unintended Consequences in the Use of Past Performance Surveys or Questionnaires The current use of past performance surveys may be jeopardizing the government RFP acquisition process as well as contributing to the circumvention of federal and DOD past performance evaluation processes and systems. BY JEFFREY W. HILLS A b o u t t h e A u t h o r JEFFREY W. HILLS, PE, CPCM, is vice president, federal programs and contracting, with EA Engineering in Hunt Valley, Maryland. Hills has more than 24 years of experience in contract and program management within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Acquisition Corps, and the commercial private sector. Send comments about this article to cm@ncmahq.org. 12 n Contract Management / January 2007

2 The recording and use of past performance information is critical to the federal procurement system. A major, if not the primary, factor in the federal government s selection of contractors for pending and future procurements is past performance. Unfortunately, the importance of recording contractor performance during and after the execution of the contract by federal agencies is not being adequately emphasized. Many contracts and task orders fail to have federally required performance evaluations performed. To make up for the lack of current and past performance evaluations, federal contracting activities are resorting to ad hoc measures to compensate for the lack of relevant contract information. One such ad hoc measure is the use of contractor surveys and questionnaires. Rather than rely on contractor past performance evaluations during request for proposal (RFP) solicitations, numerous DOD agencies are instead asking contractors to have extensive past performance surveys completed by government contracting representatives. This recent shift in reliance from past performance evaluations to past performance surveys is troublesome. It may also be an indicator of potential systematic failure of performance evaluation procedures and policies. Simply put, the current use of past performance surveys may be jeopardizing the government RFP acquisition process as well as contributing to the circumvention of federal and DOD past performance evaluation processes and systems. Background Federal past performance information is governed by FAR Subpart , Proposal Evaluation, and FAR 42.15, Contractor Performance Information. FAR deals with past performance evaluation during the request for proposal acquisition award process, while FAR deals with evaluating current performance during execution and after completion of the awarded contract. Under the authorities of FAR Part 15, DOD agencies ask contractors to have current federal and commercial clients complete past performance questionnaires or surveys. FAR establishes the responsibilities for recording and maintaining contractor performance information along with setting guidelines for the administrative process and adjudication of these performance ratings. Contractors are permitted 30 days to respond to or rebut evaluations. Disputes over the evaluation rating between the parties are resolved at one level above the contracting officer. Not all federal contracts receive evaluations. Agencies prepare an evaluation of contractor performance only if the value of the contract meets certain stated requirements. For example, under Army Federal Acquisition Regulations, AFARS , each contract in excess of 1 million for services, 500,000 for construction, and 25,000 for architect-engineering receives an evaluation called a Performance Assessment Report. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rules apply to all past performance information (PPI). These regulations ensure that contractors have the opportunity to comment on any adverse PPI on reports as well as on other PPI gathered under less formal collection methods. Under federal regulations, performance assessments are the responsibility of the program, project, and contracting team and must incorporate the federal customer s input or opinion if appropriate. Normally, this assessment responsibility falls to the contracting officer s representative. However, no person, office, or organization may independently determine January 2007 / Contract Management n 13

3 the performance assessment or evaluation. To ensure fairness, all assessments or evaluations must be reviewed and concurred by an official one level above the evaluating official, normally the contracting officer. PPI can be obtained by a number of methods including government assessments or report cards, published commercial evaluations, references submitted by the contractor, and surveys or questionnaires. Generally, PPI federal guidelines use five mandatory performance levels to describe a contractor s performance. Under PPI guidelines, federal agencies are required to allow contractors to review and comment on any past performance assessments. Additionally, all assessments or evaluations must be made available to the contractor as soon as practicable after the report or survey has been prepared. Contractors must then be allowed 30 days to submit their comments, rebutting information or other pertinent documentation to the federal buying activity before the assessment is made final. Disagreements between the government and contractor over the assessment must be resolved minimally at one level above the assessing official; again, normally the contracting officer. During source selection procedures under FAR 15, solicitations must clearly describe in Sections L and M of the RFP the approach used to evaluate past performance and how PPI will be collected. Federal guidelines state that the amount of PPI to be collected should be tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition and reasonable so as not to impose excessive burdens on the evaluators nor the offerors. An offeror with adverse PPI collected by the government must be given the opportunity to comment on the information before it is presented to source selection officials. According to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics (OUSDATL) (Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy), A Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance Information (dated May 2003), questionnaires should be short and concise and consist of no more than a page to a page and a half of questions. To assist federal acquisition officials in purchasing goods and services that represent best value, DOD developed numerous evaluation reports such as the Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS), Construction Contract Appraisal Support System (CCASS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and Past Performance Information Management System (PPIMS). Later, the Office of Management and Budget combined the DOD and other federal evaluation systems into a federalwide retrieval database system called the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) that stores and retrieves contractor past performance evaluations within all federal past performance evaluation systems. The purpose of PPIRS is to reduce the time and cost of proposal evaluations by eliminating the need to separately collect and process reports on contractor performance and reduce the need for RFP questionnaires, and to allow both the government and contractors to rely on a single source for data. Recent Trends Many federal agencies and DOD are not performing contractor performance evaluations as required by FAR Most agencies, to include DOD, acknowledge a lack of effort to properly document contractor performance. It is common knowledge that most contractors have less than half of the required contract or task order performance evaluations in the applicable federal system. Because of the lack of current, past performance evaluations, recent DOD procurements are relying heavily on extensive past performance questionnaires. Many federal agencies are purposely shunning the limited performance evaluations stored in PPIRS, and are instead relying on surveys or questionnaires as the primary element for determining past performance in source selections. Two recent examples, whose agencies will not be disclosed in this article, clearly demonstrate the extent of this adverse trend. In one solicitation, the RFP s Section L and M went as far as to say that offers were to track and ensure the completion/ submission of the contracting office by the proposal due date, contrary to the OUSDATL policy guidance on questionnaires. This same solicitation also failed to address FAR requirements for the contractor s 30-day comment period or how comment or evaluation disputes would be resolved. More importantly, the RFP stated in passing that the government may use PPIRS data to supplement the questionnaires; once again, indicating the over reliance and preference of surveys over evaluations. DOD RFP survey questionnaires have quickly outgrown the one and a half page example suggested in the May 2003 OUSDATL policy guidance. One recent RFP questionnaire, the Air Combat Commands s DBR2, Solicitation FA R- 0162, questionnaire, shown as Exhibit A on page 16, consisted of six pages of small font and whose length and extent of questions 14 n Contract Management / January 2007

4 PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHMENT L-6 : PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE 8 September 2005 ATTACHMENT L-6: PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (PPQ) DESIGN-BUILD, RESTORE, REMEDIATE (DBR2) Part I General Contract Information Part I has been completed by the contractor. Please confirm the following information provided by the contractor. Please make corrections if applicable. If you are filling out the form electronically, please make changes with tracking on. If you are filling out the form by hand, please make pen and ink changes. 1. Your Contact Information: Name: Office/Company Name: Title/Position: Phone: 2. Contractor Information: Contractor Name: Contract Number: Contract/Program/Project Title: Contract/Program/Project Acronym: Exhibit A Role on this Contract: Prime Subcontractor Business Size: Program Description: Program Location: Customer/Agency Name: Address: City: State: Zip: 3. Contract value excluding unexercised options: Original Contract Value: Current Contract Value: 4. Period of Performance: Start Date: Original End Date: Current End Date: 5. Contract Type: CAGE Code: Past and Present Performance Questionnaire - FA R-0162 ATTACHMENT L-6, Page 1 of 6 16 n Contract Management / January 2007

5 PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHMENT L-6 : PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE 8 September 2005 Percentage of work performed: % Remediation Stop Loss/Cost Cap Insurance Required? Yes No Amount: DUNS Number: Bonding Required? Yes No Part II Instructions 1. Are you knowledgeable about the contractor s performance on the above referenced contract? Yes (please continue with the questionnaire) No (please explain why and then submit per instructions in Part IV, Question 1 ) Why? DEFINITIONS. Please use the following definitions when completing the Past Performance Questionnaire: CODE E V S M U N PERFORMANCE LEVEL EXCEPTIONAL - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. VERY GOOD - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. SATISFACTORY - Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. MARGINAL - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. UNSATISFACTORY - Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. NOT APPLICABLE - Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area not applicable to effort assessed. Part III Questionnaire Exhibit A SECTION A MANAGEMENT APPROACH (Please complete if you are/were an end user of the contractor's product or service.) 1. How would you rate the quality of the management support assigned by the contractor to the project? 2. How would you rate the contractor's management of key subcontractors? E V S M U N Past and Present Performance Questionnaire - FA R-0162 ATTACHMENT L-6, Page 2 of 6 January 2007 / Contract Management n 17

6 PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHMENT L-6 : PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE 8 September How would you rate the overall quality of contract management? 4. How would you rate the contractor s ability to hire trained, qualified employees? 5. How would you rate the contractor s ability to retain trained personnel on your project? 6. How successful was the contractor in keeping abreast of changes in Government regulations (i.e. Federal Regulations, Military Specs, local regulations, etc)? 7. How effective was the on-site management? 8. How effective was the autonomy of the on-site management in dealing with emergency situations? 9. How would you rate the contractor s safety record on your project? 10. How would you rate the contractor s Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) on your project? 11. How would you rate the contractor s ability to maintain workable QA/QC procedures associated with chemical sampling, handling, shipping and testing? 12. How effective was the contractor s internal organizational relationship with respect to your project? Exhibit A SECTION B TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS (Please complete if you are/were an end user of the contractor's product or service or involved in quality assurance evaluation.) 1. How would your rate the quality of the service provided? 2. How would you rate the accuracy of deliverables (reports, etc.) 3. How would you rate the responsiveness to emergency situations? 4. How would you rate the contractor's responsiveness to customer inquiries? 5. How would you rate the ability of the contractor to meet deadlines? 6. How would you rate the ability of the contractor to meet established milestones? 7. How would you rate the contractor's communication with the customer? 8. How would you rate the contractor s ability to work with automated systems? 9. How would you rate the contractor s ability to accurately perform site investigations? 10. How would you rate the contractor s ability to accurately assess the environmental situation? 11. How would you rate the contractor s ability to work with federal, state and local regulators? 12. How would you rate the contractor s ability to suggest innovative remedies? 13. How would you rate the contractor s ability to successfully progress with remedial remedies? 14. How would you rate the contractor s ability to control site conditions? 15. How would you rate the contractor s ability to accurately perform long-term monitoring of the site? 16. How would you rate the overall performance by the contractor? E V S M U N Past and Present Performance Questionnaire - FA R-0162 ATTACHMENT L-6, Page 3 of 6 18 n Contract Management / January 2007

7 PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHMENT L-6 - PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE 8 September 2005 SECTION C RESOURCES (Please complete if you are/were an end user of the contractor's product or service or involved in quality assurance evaluation) 1. How would you rate the quality of the contractor s personnel assigned to the project? 2. How would you rate the quality of the contractor s corporate backup for the employees at your site? 3. How would you rate the contractor s ability to obtain qualified substitutions for departing employees throughout the performance period? 4. How would you rate the contractor s ability to provide seamless transition between departing and replacement employees throughout the performance period? 5. How would you rate the contractor s employees at developing innovative and alternative methods of performing required functions on your project? 6. How would you rate the contractor's cooperativeness in reacting to changes? 7. How would you rate the contractor s employees overall (how satisfied were you with the performance of the contractor employees)? 8. How would you rate the contractor s responsiveness (i.e. did the contractor respond promptly to telephone calls, did the contractor respond in a professional manner, was the contractor argumentative or hard to find or deal with)? E V S M U N Exhibit A SECTION D - CONTRACTUAL ISSUES (Please complete if you were the contract specialist/officer/administrator.) 1. How would you rate the contractor's ability to meet any socioeconomic subcontracting requirements? 2. How would you rate the accuracy of cost/pricing proposal in relationship to the final price? 3. How would you rate the contractor's cooperation in negotiating (both initial award and modifications)? 4. How would you rate the contractor's ability to control costs? 5. How would you rate the contractor's ability to control the number of modifications? 6. How would you rate the contractor's responsiveness to the Contracting Office? 7. How would you rate the contractor's ability to meet suspense dates and milestones? 8. How would you rate the contractor's ability to deal with changes and deficiencies? 9. How successful was the contractor in successfully completing the project (i.e. were there any show cause or cure notices issued, was the contractor defaulted on the action or any other contracting action of which you are aware)? 10. To the credit or fault of the contractor, this contract: COST Experienced a cost savings Experienced a cost overrun Completed at original contract cost E V S M U N SCHEDULE Finished ahead of schedule Needed a schedule extension Completed right on schedule Past and Present Performance Questionnaire - FA R-0162 ATTACHMENT L-6, Page 4 of 6 January 2007 / Contract Management n 19

8 PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHMENT L-6 - PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE 8 September 2005 Please explain. 11. Has this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience? No Yes 12. Are there any pending terminations? No Yes If yes, specify: Termination for Default Termination for Convenience Pending Termination Please explain (e.g. inability to meet cost, performance, or delivery schedules, etc.) Exhibit A SECTION E - OTHER 1. What would you consider the greatest strengths of this contractor? 2. What would you consider to be the greatest weakness of this contractor? 3. Please provide any additional comments as you desire or see fit 4. Please provide your opinion for the following by putting a check mark in the appropriate code box. E V S M U N Would you recommend this contractor? Would you use this contractor again? Past and Present Performance Questionnaire - FA R-0162 ATTACHMENT L-6, Page 5 of 6 20 n Contract Management / January 2007

9 PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHMENT L-6 - PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE 8 September Is there anyone else we should contact regarding the contractor s performance on this contract? Reference 1 Name: Title/Position: Office/Company Name: Phone: Reference 2 Name: Office/Company Name: Title/Position: Phone: Reference 3 Name: Office/Company Name: Title/Position: Phone: Exhibit A Part IV PPQ Completion 1. THANK YOU! Please or fax your completed form to the following. Phone: Fax: If you answered No, to Part II, Question 1, please fax or this form to the above POC. Based on your comments above, we may wish to contact you for further information. Thank you again for your time. Past and Present Performance Questionnaire - FA R-0162 ATTACHMENT L-6, Page 6 of 6 January 2007 / Contract Management n 21

10 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (ARCHITECT-ENGINEER) A-E CONTRACTOR I.D. NUMBER (For ACASS use only) 1. A-E CONTRACT NUMBER 2. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NUMBER IMPORTANT: Be sure to complete back of form. If additional space is necessary for any item, use Remarks section on back. 4. PROJECT NUMBER 3. TYPE OF EVALUATION a. PHASE OF COMPLETION b. COMPLETION(X one) c. X IF APPLICABLE INTERIM ( %) FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONSTRUCTION TERMINATION (Explain in Remarks) 6. NAME AND ADDRESS OF A-E CONTRACTOR 7a. PROJECT TITLE AND LOCATION 5. DELIVERY ORDER NO.(S) (if applicable) 7b. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT IF NOT EXPLAINED BY TITLE 8. NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF OFFICE RESPONSIBLE FOR: a. SELECTION OF A-E CONTRACTOR b. NEGOTIATION/AWARD OF A-E CONTRACT Exhibit B c. ADMINISTRATION OF A-E CONTRACT d. ADMINISTRATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 9. A-E CONTRACT DATA (Items 9d thru 9g are not applicable during construction unless there are modifications to the A-E contract.) a. TYPE OF WORK (Design, study, etc.) b. TYPE OF CONTRACT c. PROJECT COMPLEXITY DIFFICULT ROUTINE d. CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER AMOUNT (1) INITIAL FEE FIRM FIXED-PRICE COST-REIMBURSEMENT e. CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER AWARD DATE f. NEGOTIATED CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER COMPLETION DATE (or number of days) (Including extensions) b. DATA AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION (Completion date ) (1) CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATIONS (2) CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATIONS ARISING FROM DESIGN DEFICIENCIES INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY (ID/IQ) OTHER (Specify) (2) CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER MODIFICATIONS NO. AMOUNT (3) TOTAL FEE g. ACTUAL CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER COMPLETION DATE (or number of days) 10. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DATA (Not applicable at completion of design or engineering services not involving construction.) (1) AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION COST (2) A-E ESTIMATE FOR BID ITEMS (3) AWARD AMOUNT a. CONSTRUCTION COSTS AWARDED NUMBER 11. A-E LIABILITY NONE UNDETERMINED PENDING SETTLEMENT 12. OVERALL RATING 13. RECOMMENDEDFOR FUTURE CONTRACTS? EXCEPTIONAL VERY GOOD SATISFACTORY MARGINAL 14a. NAME, TITLE AND OFFICE OF RATING OFFICIAL TASK ORDER UNDER ID/IQ UNSATISFACTORY YES CONDITIONALLY NO (Explain "No" or "Conditionally" in Remarks.) TOTAL COST 15a. NAME, TITLE AND OFFICE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL TELEPHONE NUMBER: TELEPHONE NUMBER: b. SIGNATURE c. DATE b. SIGNATURE c. DATE (Official Report date) AGENCY USE: (Distribution, etc.) DD FORM 2631, APR 1999 (EG) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE. Exception to SF 1421 Approved by GSA/IRMS WHS/DIOR, Apr n Contract Management / January 2007

11 16. QUALITY OF A-E SERVICES BY DISCIPLINE (Completion mandatory for both DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION phases and Engineering Services) a. DISCIPLINES (If applicable) Architectural Structural Civil Mechanical Electrical Fire Protection Surveying, Mapping, & Geospatial Information Svcs. Cost Estimating Value Engineering Environmental Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Master Planning Hydrology Chemical Engineering Geology Chemistry Risk Assessment Safety/Occupational Health Hydrographic Surveying EXCEP- TIONAL DESIGN/SERVICES VERY SATIS- GOOD FACTORY MARGINAL UNSATIS- FACTORY EXCEP- TIONAL CONSTRUCTION VERY SATIS- GOOD FACTORY MARGINAL UNSATIS- FACTORY 17. DESIGN PHASE OR ENGINEERINGSERVICES (Quality of A-E Services Evaluation) EXCEP- VERY TIONAL GOOD ATTRIBUTES (If applicable) Thoroughness of Site Investigation/Field Analysis Quality Control Procedures and Execution Plans/Specs Accurate and Coordinated Plans Clear and Detailed Sufficiently Management and Adherence to Schedules Meeting Cost Limitations Suitability of Design or Study Results Solution Environmentally Suitable Cooperativeness and Responsiveness Quality of Briefing and Presentations Innovative Approaches/Technologies Implementation of Sm. Business Subcontracting Plan SATIS- FACTORY MARGINAL UNSATIS- FACTORY 16b. DISCIPLINE, NAME AND ADDRESS OF KEY CONSULTANT(S) (If applicable) Exhibit B 18. HOW MANY 100% FINAL RESUBMITTALS WERE REQUIRED BECAUSE OF POOR A-E PERFORMANCE? 19. CONSTRUCTION PHASE (Quality of A-E Services Evaluation) Plans Clear and Detailed Sufficiently Drawings Reflect True Conditions Plans/Specs Accurate and Coordinated Design Constructibility ATTRIBUTES (If applicable) Cooperativeness and Responsiveness Timeliness and Quality of Processing Submittals Product & Equipment Selections Readily Available Timeliness of Answers to Design Questions Field Consultation and Investigations Quality of Construction Support Services EXCEP- TIONAL VERY GOOD SATIS- FACTORY MARGINAL UNSATIS- FACTORY 20. REMARKS (Attach additional sheet(s) or documentation if necessary) DD FORM 2631 (BACK), APR 1999 January 2007 / Contract Management n 23

12 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION Name of Offeror: Client/Contract Information (supplied by offeror) Name of Client: Contract Number: Contract Title: Contract Value: Type of Contract: Period of Performance: The ratings below are supplied by the contractor identified above, NOT the offeror. Exhibit C Performance Elements 1. Quality of Product or Service 2. Cost Control 3. Timeliness of Performance 4. Business Relations Unsatisfactory 0 Poor 1 Fair 2 Good 3 5. Remarks on outstanding performance: Excellent 4 Outstanding 5 Provide data supporting this observation; you may continue on a separate sheet if needed. 6. Remarks on unsatisfactory performance: Provide data supporting this observation; you may continue on a separate sheet if needed. 7. Please identify any corporate affiliations with the offeror. 8. Other comments that you wish to make: 9. Would you do business with again? (insert offeror s name) 10. Questionnaire completed by: Name: Title: Mailing Address (Street and P.O. Box): City, State and Zip Code: Telephone Number: Fax Number: Date Information provided: 24 n Contract Management / January 2007

13 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE Ratings and Performance Categories The offeror shall be evaluated based on the following ratings and performance categories: Ratings: 0 = unsatisfactory 1 = poor 2 = fair 3 = good 4 = excellent 5 = outstanding Quality of Product or Service Unsatisfactory: Nonconformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of client resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards containing similar requirements. Exhibit C Poor: Overall compliance requires significant client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. Fair: Overall compliance requires minor client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. Good: There are no, or very minimal, quality problems, and the offeror has met the contract requirements. Excellent: There are no quality issues, and the offeror has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the client. Outstanding: The offeror has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that was significantly in excess of anticipated achievements and is commendable as an example for others, so that it justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where offeror performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent." Cost Control Unsatisfactory: Ability to manage cost issues is jeopardizing performance of contract requirements, despite use of client resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, this level of ability to manage cost issues constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards. Poor: Ability to manage cost issues requires significant client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. Fair: Ability to control cost issues requires minor client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. January 2007 / Contract Management n 25

14 Exhibit C Good: There are no, or very minimal, cost management issues and the offeror has met the contract requirements. Excellent: There are no cost management issues and the offeror has exceeded the contract requirements, achieving cost savings to the client. Outstanding: The offeror has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where the offeror achieved cost savings and performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent." Timeliness of Performance Unsatisfactory: Delays are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements, despite use of client resources. Recovery is not likely. If performance cannot be substantially corrected, it constitutes a significant impediment in consideration for future awards. Poor: Delays require significant client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. Fair: Delays require minor client resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements. Good: There are no, or minimal, delays that impact achievement of contract requirements. Excellent: There are no delays and the offeror has exceeded the agreed upon time schedule. Outstanding: The offeror has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where offeror performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent." Business Relations Unsatisfactory: Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is not effective. If not substantially mitigated or corrected it should constitute a significant impediment in considerations for future awards. Poor: Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is marginally effective. Fair: Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is somewhat effective. Good: Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues is consistently effective. Excellent: Response to inquiries and/or technical, service, administrative issues exceeds client expectation. Outstanding: The offeror has demonstrated an outstanding performance level that justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances where offeror performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent." 26 n Contract Management / January 2007

15 exceeded any of the known formal performance evaluation forms (ACASS, CCASS, CPARS, PPIMS, etc). Contrasting this survey to the ACASS evaluation form, shown in Exhibit B on page 22, can be easily construed as an official and formal evaluation of the contractor. One can easily comprehend the deviation in intent when this particular DOD RFP s questionnaire is contrasted to another federal agency s questionnaire, such as EPA s one and a half page RAC 2 RFP questionnaire shown in Exhibit C on page 24. The evidence stated earlier and the current government RFP trends suggest that questionnaires have morphed into fullblown evaluation forms due to the lack of current and appropriate performance evaluations required by federal and DOD evaluation policy and procedures. The handling of these performance questionnaires by procuring officials is also questionable and may be jeopardizing the source selection process. Numerous instances exist of requesting agencies that have haphazardly handled, misplaced, or lost questionnaires even through the surveys were documented as having been received by the procuring activity. The loose accountability associated with mailed in surveys or to that matter, telephonic surveys with dubious proper contracting officials, adds a degree of risk, as well as diminishes the integrity, of the federal procurement process. Consequently, the current use of surveys in federal RFP acquisition processes makes the probability for a contractor protest to be upheld during a non-agency protest decision more likely than ever before. Inevitable Conclusion The lack of emphasis in the proper documentation of contractor performance, as required by FAR 42.15, combined with the need for past performance information in source selection is causing federal acquisition activities to stretch the FAR 15 past performance evaluation needs. Due to a lack of management emphasis on the accomplishment of performance evaluations at the conclusion of a project, acquisition officials are resorting to the use of extensive surveys or questionnaires that are in reality a de facto performance evaluation, promulgated outside of the agency s normal procedures. In doing so, government officials jeopardize agency solicitations by not following the federally required notification, comment, and appellate procedures and timeframes. This abusive use of surveys is also undermining, if not completely circumventing, the whole intent of FAR Part 42.15, the various performance policies, evaluation forms, and systems as well as the newly created PPIRS purpose and database. Recommendations Following, I have listed four recommendations that may serve as feasible considerations to reverse the negative and unintended consequences of current federal trends in the use of past performance surveys or questionnaires. 1. Due to the current inappropriate use of the questionnaires or surveys, an increase to the amount of award protests and corresponding probability of success to those protests January 2007 / Contract Management n 27

16 will inevitably delay major DOD acquisition projects. Consequently, it is recommended that any future federal or DOD use of questionnaires be prohibited until such time that implementing guidance can be promulgated on the extent, use, and nature of questionnaires used in source selection activities. 2. Federal and DOD managers should emphasize and track the proper documentation of contractor past performance in accordance with FAR and other implementing supplements and agency procedures. Agencies can easily monitor buying activities by identifying the number of missing evaluations and notifying activities of delinquencies. A data run of all completed contracts meeting required dollar thresholds for evaluations over the last five years can be compared to the PPIRS or other databases to quickly identify the missing evaluations and the delinquent contracting activity. Additionally, federal acquisition managers should change agency procedures to require that a draft performance evaluation, if required by regulation, be presented to the contracting officer before the processing and payment of the final contract invoice. Tying the ramifications of paying interest under the Prompt Payment Act to the timely processing of performance evaluations would institutionalize the emphasis as part of contract closeout procedures. 3. To resolve the problem with missing performance evaluations, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy should mandate that contractors with satisfactory or average performance do not require a written evaluation. Consequently, average performance ratings would be optional. Evaluations should only be required for unsatisfactory, marginal, above average, and excellent ratings. Any contract with a missing contractor performance would be by default viewed as having an average performance rating until whenever the buying activity completed a final written evaluation. Following this recommendation would minimize the administrative impact on the federal workforce to address missing evaluations, while properly documenting contractor performance that warrants documentation for federal source selection proceedings as well as supporting the new PPIRS. 4. Finally, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy should direct that only past performance evaluations contained within the PPIRS are the appropriate primary means for evaluating past performance in source selection procedures. Questionnaires and surveys should be restricted in use and only permitted as supplementary information for use in tie-breaking situations. Restricting the use of primary past performance evaluations will also encourage buying activities to perform the evaluations rather than relying on questionnaires from reluctant if not dubious evaluation sources. Conclusion The recording and use of past performance information is critical to the federal procurement system. Unfortunately, the importance of recording contractor performance during and after the execution of the contract by federal agencies appears to be inadequately emphasized. To make up for the lack of performance evaluations, federal contracting activities are resorting to surveys and questionnaires to substitute for the lacking evaluation data. Rather than rely on contractor past performance evaluations within PPIRS, numerous federal agencies are instead asking contractors to have extensive past performance surveys completed by government representatives, who may or may not be the appropriate people (nor may this be the procedure) to accomplish the data collection. This recent shift to the reliance of past performance surveys is not only troublesome, but indicates a systematic failure of performance evaluation procedures and policies. This compensating shift to surveys may in fact be jeopardizing the integrity of the government acquisition process as well as contributing to the circumvention of federal and DOD past performance evaluation processes and systems. The four recommendations presented in this article are prudent steps necessary to safeguard the federal procurement process as well as re-orient the federal emphasis on the timely recording of past performance in accordance with OMB and FAR policies. CM 28 n Contract Management / January 2007