Contractors Getting Shortchanged on Past Performance Ratings

The purpose of Performance Assessment Reports (PARs) is to provide source selection officials with information on contractor past performance. Government officials prepare PARs in CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System). Most Government contractors are familiar with PARs/CPARS, having had the opportunity to review and respond to performance information loaded up on Government databases.

The DoD, Office of Inspector General (IG) recently published its capstone report on DoD compliance with PAR regulations. Over a number of years, it reviewed 238 PARs prepared by Army, Navy, Air Force and Defense organizations. While the IG found that officials generally registered (or had valid reasons for not registering) contracts and prepared corresponding PARs, they did not consistently comply with preparation requirements. Besides the fact that a third of them were prepared an average of 73 days late, 200 of the 238 PARS were deficient in terms of complying with FAR regulations and the CPARS Guide. Specifically, DoD officials did not:

• prepare written narratives sufficient to justify the ratings given
• rate required evaluation factors, and
• prepare sufficient contract effort descriptions.

The IG found reasons for these deficiencies. They included

• assessors were not adequately trained and organizations lacked effective procedures for timeliness and reviews of the PARs (there it is, the "more training" recommendation - you see this in every IG report)
• there was a lack of internal controls within CPARS - no system requirement to write a narrative and insufficient explanations for the different ratings,
• the CPARS guide did not contain sufficient information related to the utilization of small business.

Now the big "so what". Why should contractor's care about these deficiencies? Well, without access to timely, accurate, and complete past performance assessment information, contracting officers will not have past performance information needed to make informed decisions related to contract awards. This could work against contractors whose good work on prior contracts are not considered in the selection process. We would also suggest that it could work against the Government as well if past poor performance was not documented.

As recommendations, the IG recommended more guidance, more training, and enhancements to CPARS that will require written narrative along with other information.

You can read the entire IG report here.

DoD Fails to Issue Adequate or Timely Appraisals of Contractor Performance

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires Government officials to evaluate contractor performance in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) (see FAR Part 42.15). CPARS is the Government-wide reporting tool for past performance on contracts. The primary purpose of CPARS is to ensure that current, complete, and accurate information on contractor performance is available for use in procurement source selections. Government officials evaluate contractors in CPARS by preparing a PAR (Performance Assessment Report). PARs are to be prepared at least annually and at the end of the contract.

Most Government contractors are familiar with the PAR process and everyone strives for good reports. However, as many contractors have experienced, the Government often neglects to prepare PARs. That could be a good thing in some cases if you're the contractor and your performance has been less than stellar. Conversely, if your performance has been outstanding and the Government fails to put that in a report, that performance will not be recognized the next time you submit a bid and the contracting officer queries his past performance database to see how well you performed in the past.

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD-IG) was concerned about contracting officer compliance with FAR 42.15 so they initiated an audit to see if there truly was a systematic problem. The results were not encouraging. The IG reported, in their typical understated tone, that "Defense organization officials did not consistently comply with requirements for assessing contractor performance". Translation? There was a high failure rate. Fourty-nine of 53 PARs reviewed did not include sufficient written narrative to justify the ratings given.

The DoD-IG cited several conditions that led to the failures:

1. organization-specific procedures did not have clear guidance for preparing PARs in a timely manner or did not address timeliness
2. assessors did not understand PAR rating definitions or evaluation factors
3. assessors did not take current training or properly implement training and
4. organization-specific procedures did not require reviews of PARs to ensure compliance with the FAR.

Because of the noted deficiencies, the DoD-IG concluded that Federal source selection officials did not have access to timely, accurate, and complete past performance assessment information needed to make informed decisions related to contract awards.

You can read the entire DoD-IG report here.