Yesterday, the Senate Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight held a hearing on the state of contractor performance information. The purpose of the hearing was to examine how the federal government collects, manages, and uses information about contractor performance and integrity. The hearing focused on how the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) has been implemented and used over its first four years, as well as examining how well FAPIIS works with other past performance databases and potential improvements that can be made to the information available on the databases.
FAPIIS collects the following information. With the exception of No. 9, Past Performance Evaluations, all information is available to the public. Past performance evaluations, is considered source selection sensitive and are not available to the public
- Criminal convictions
- Certain civil judgments and administrative findings of fault
- Certain compromises or agreements that settle criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings
- Ineligibility due to suspension or debarment
- Administrative agreements issued in lieu of suspension or debarment
- Non-responsibility determinations
- Contracts and grants terminated for default
- Defective pricing determinations
- Past performance evaluations
Through February 13, 2014, a total of 1,791 records have been uploaded into FAPIIS. 91% of these records relate to contracts that were terminated for default or cause. There were 47 non-responsibility determinations and 109 administrative agreements. There is only one reported instance of defective pricing. There are no reported instances of criminal convictions even though everyone knows that there are numerous criminal convictions of Government contractors every year.
Prominent in the hearing was the case of CGI Group, the prime contractor responsible for the "Healthcare.gov" debacle. CGI purchase AMS and renamed it to CGI Federal. While there was no negative information about CGI Federal in the FAPIIS, there was plenty of negative information concerning AMS. However, because of the acquisition and name change, the negative information was obscured and never obtained by the Government when awarding the "healthcare.gov" contract.
Another problem raised was the multiple DUNS numbers. Lockheed Martin, for example, was cited as having more than 80 DUNS numbers. Senator McCaskil wondered why there couldn't be just one number.
A third issued raised was the sheer number of records made it difficult for a contracting officer to digest into useful information. One of the witnesses reported that work was in process to aggregate this information into some kind of numerical score to make it easier on the user.
If you desire to view the one and a half hour hearing, go here.