Contractor Past Performance Information - Part II

In yesterday's posting, we discussed contract performance information that the Government collects and makes available for contracting officers when "past performance" is one of the award criteria for prospective contracts. The Government is becoming very efficient at collecting this data. All agencies are now required to post this information into a centralized web-based system (CPARS, or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) which allows cross-Agency access to performance information. The system provides for a narrative assessment of past performance and this narrative assessment is considered the most critical aspect of the assessment. The DoD guide for collecting past performance information states the following:

Supporting narrative rationales for all performance ratings assigned are mandatory in DoD. The narratives are critical to any PPI assessment and necessary to establish that the ratings are credible and justifiable. These rationales need not be lengthy. But if there were performance successes or problems, they should be documented. Include a description of the problems or successes experienced; an assessment of whether the problems were caused by the contractor, the Government, or other factors; and how well the contractor worked with the Government to resolve the problems (including problems with subcontractors or “partners” in joint venture or teaming arrangements). The narrative rationale is also useful in future acquisitions; it helps assessing officials to establish the relevancy of the work covered to the instant requirement.

It is critical that contractors take the time to review and comment on the Government's "view" of their past performance. Even if the information doesn't sound too bad, it could be injurious to future success if the competition sounds less bad. For example, if a contractor's past performance is rated "satisfactory" (met all contract terms and conditions) but the competition is rated "exceptional", the competition will be rated higher in this area and that might be all it takes to differentiate the successful offeror from the rest of the pack. Contractors should be especially sensitive of situations where there were mitigating circumstances or where the Government might have contributed to a particular situation.

There are five performance ratings. Do not settle for anything less than "exceptional".

1. Exceptional - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
2. Very Good - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
3. Satisfactory - 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.
4. Marginal - 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 not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
5. Unsatisfactory - Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely 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.