BUILDING STRONG ® Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System Changes to Contractor...
If you can't read please download the document
BUILDING STRONG ® Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System Changes to Contractor Performance Evaluations 1 Ian Mitchell, PE, LEED AP BD+C Chief,
BUILDING STRONG Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting
System Changes to Contractor Performance Evaluations 1 Ian
Mitchell, PE, LEED AP BD+C Chief, Management Support Section &
Louisville District A-E Responsibility Coordinator 29 Jan 15
Slide 2
BUILDING STRONG What Has Changed? 2 In the past, CPARS, ACASS
and CCASS contained differing contractor evaluation forms, rating
elements, and workflow processes. The CPARS, ACASS and CCASS
modules have been merged into a single application developed by the
Naval Sea Logistics Center Portsmouth under the CPARS name. The
merge includes the transition to common evaluation entry fields
with a common set of rating elements in addition to a transition to
a common workflow process.
Slide 3
BUILDING STRONG Why do we evaluate performance? 3 Regulatory
Requirements FAR 42.1502 Past Performance Evaluations Prepared: At
Least Annually At Time Work Under Contract or Order is Completed
Past Performance Information Shall be Entered Into CPARS FAR
42.1503 Evaluation Factors (Technical, Cost Control, Schedule,
Management, Small Business Subcontracting, other) FAR 15.304 Past
Performance Shall be Evaluated in all Source Selections for
Negotiated Competitive Acquisitions Expected to Exceed Simplified
Acquisition Threshold
Slide 4
BUILDING STRONG Why Change to CPARS? Issues discovered:
skepticism about the reliability of the information a lack of
central oversight and management GAO recommendation: standardize
evaluation factors and rating scales government-wide. 4 Implements
one of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations
in audit GAO-09-374 Federal Contractors: Better Performance
Information Needed to Support Agency Contract Award Decisions dated
April 23, 2009.
Slide 5
BUILDING STRONG The End Result 5 A single streamlined and
optimized system Merging of CPARS and the Past Performance
Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) into the Integrated Award
Environment
Slide 6
BUILDING STRONG When will CPARS use begin? Louisville District
began entering CPARS evaluations for A-E Contracts into the system
starting in mid January 2015 and construction began in late 2014.
The CPARS process for both construction and engineering is a work
in progress. 6
Slide 7
BUILDING STRONG Changes The DD2631 (ACASS) and the DD2626
(CCASS) are no longer being used. The PDF version of the evaluation
is no longer being used. The interface to the Resident Management
System (RMS) for construction and A-E performance has been removed.
Data elements have been revised; fields for Project Title and
Complexity have been added. 7
Slide 8
BUILDING STRONG Changes Cont. The terms Rating Official and
Evaluating Official have been changed to Reviewing Official. The
Reviewing Official will be optional for Architect-Engineer and
Construction evaluations. A Reviewing Official will only be
required in the event that the Contractor Representative does not
concur with the evaluation. Completed Architect & Engineering
and Construction evaluations will no longer overwrite previously
completed evaluations. All evaluations, including
Architect-Engineer and Construction, will be archived from CPARS
three years following contract completion. Retentions in PPIRS will
remain the same at six years from the contract completion date.
8
Slide 9
BUILDING STRONG What will be evaluated All Architect-Engineer
(A-E) contracts that are over $30,000 or terminated for default
will receive a final performance evaluation. All A-E contracts that
are over $30,000 with a period of performance over one year will
receive interim performance evaluations annually. All A-E contracts
that include preparation of construction documents and are over
$30,000 will receive an addendum performance evaluation at the
conclusion of construction. This includes contracts with and
without construction phase services 9
Slide 10
BUILDING STRONG Elements of CPARS Evaluation Rating Elements
Quality Schedule Cost Control Management Utilization of Small
Business Regulatory Compliance Other Evaluation Areas (three total)
Comments will be made on each area An overall rating will be given
in the Other Section Individual disciplines will be evaluated in
the comments section for Other 10
Slide 11
BUILDING STRONG LRL CPARS Entry Form 11 Helps with consistency
between numerous Government Project Engineers Based on guidance
included in ECB 2014-13* *
http://www.hnc.usace.army.mil/Missions/Engineering/TECHINFO.aspx
Slide 12
BUILDING STRONG Input into CPARS Typical Project and Company
Information Evaluation Type: Interim, Final or Addendum Total
Dollar Value Current Contract Dollar Value Location of Work
Complexity: High, Medium or Low Contract Effort Description Key
Subcontractors and Effort Performed 12
Slide 13
BUILDING STRONG Quality Contractors management of the quality
control program and Quality of the work itself Did the AE follow
their Quality Management Plan? Did the AE perform appropriate site
investigations? Were deliverables accurate and coordinated? Were
the deliverables clear and sufficiently detailed? Did the AEs
provide a functional and useable product? Did the AE provide an
aesthetically designed facility? Did the AE provide appropriate and
timely responses? Was the design prepared in accordance with the
present sustainability and environmental requirements? Did the AE
develop and implement any innovative approaches? Was the product
biddable with a minimum number of amendments? Were all design
products submitted in the appropriate format? 13
Slide 14
BUILDING STRONG Schedule Assess the timeliness of the
Contractor against the required completion date of the contract,
milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements Did
the AE adhere to the schedule within their contract/task order?
Were all deliverables submitted as required per the schedule? If
the AE was not able to adhere to their schedule, did they develop a
corrective action plan and follow this plan? 14
Slide 15
BUILDING STRONG Cost Control Typically used to evaluate Cost
Contracts. For AE contracts, the purpose of this element will be to
evaluate the AEs cost estimating performance. If there was no cost
estimating in the AEs scope, then this area shall be N/A. Factors
to consider: If a design, was the cost within the cost limitations
specified in the contract/task order? For other products such as
studies, was meaningful cost data provided to support the results
of the product? Were the submitted estimates performed with
sufficient detail and accuracy? If a Value Engineering study was
performed, was AE cooperative in implementing approved
recommendations? FAR 36.609-1 Design within funding limitations.
15
Slide 16
BUILDING STRONG Management of Key Personnel Should reflect the
Contractors internal and external day- to-day business operations
as they relate to meeting contract requirements. Factors to
consider: Did the AEs project manager provide the appropriate
leadership? Did the AE exhibit reasonable and cooperative behavior?
Did the AE manage their consultants? Did the key personnel
identified to participate remain involved? 16
Slide 17
BUILDING STRONG Utilization of Small Business This category may
be rated N/A for small business contracts. This area must be rated
for all contracts and task orders that contain a small business
subcontracting plan. Assess compliance with all terms and
conditions in the contract relating to Small Business
participation. Compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Compliance with FAR
52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Contractors good faith
effort(s) to meet contract goals and requirements eSRS (Electronic
Subcontracting Reporting System) 17
Slide 18
BUILDING STRONG Regulatory Compliance Architect-Engineer
evaluations shall be N/A unless a specific component of design or
engineering services is governed by an environmental regulation is
important enough to be broken out from the quality rating. 18
Slide 19
BUILDING STRONG Other 19 Overall Rating Discipline Specific
Ratings Will be in comments section of CPARS under Other Not Per
the ECB for A-E Contracts
Slide 20
BUILDING STRONG Recommendation Given what I know today about
the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with this
contract or orders most significant requirements, I Recommend or I
Do Not Recommend them for similar requirements in the future
20
Slide 21
BUILDING STRONG Concerns with CPARS No overall rating Built-in
Cost growth is not easily attained Total Dollar Value Includes
Un-awarded Options Current Dollar Value Includes awarded options
and mods Several fields do not align with the areas important to
the district No requirement for A-E responsibility data
Construction Cost Growth Damages to the Government 21
Slide 22
BUILDING STRONG CPARS Roles 22 Focal Point/Alternate Focal
Point (FP/AFP): Registers Contracts, Assigns Users, Provides
Support Assessing Official Rep (AOR): Assists Assessing Official in
Preparing Evaluation Assessing Official (AO): Sends Evaluation to
Contractor Rep; Reviews Contractor Comments Contractor Rep (CR):
Provides Comments Reviewing Official (RO): Resolves Disputes
https://www.cpars.gov
Slide 23
BUILDING STRONG CPARS Timeline 23 Within 30 Days of Contract
Award FP/AFP, AOR, or AO Registers Basic Contract Information
FP/AFP, AOR, or AO Registers Basic Contract Information 1 1 335
Days After Contract Award Evaluation Appears on AOR/AO To Do List 2
2 365 - 485 Days After Contract Award AOR/AO Enters Evaluation
Ratings & Narratives 3 3 365 485 Days After Contract Award AO
Sends Evaluation to CR 4 4 https://www.cpars.gov
Slide 24
BUILDING STRONG CPARS Timeline 24 Days 1 14 After Eval Sent to
CR CR May Send Comments If CR Sends Comments and AO/RO Closes, Eval
Sent to PPIRS 5 5 Day 15 After Eval Sent to CR Eval Available in
PPIRS: - With or Without CR Comments - Whether or Not It Has Been
Closed by AO/RO Eval Available in PPIRS: - With or Without CR
Comments - Whether or Not It Has Been Closed by AO/RO Note: Eval
Marked as Pending if Not Closed 6 6 https://www.cpars.gov
Slide 25
BUILDING STRONG CPARS Timeline 25 Days 15 60 After Eval Sent to
CR CR May Send Comments if None Previously Provided If CR Sends
Comments, PPIRS Updated to Reflect CR Comments; Pending Marking
Removed When AO/RO Closes Eval 7 7 Day 61 After Eval Sent to CR
Eval Returned to AO; CR Locked Out of Eval & May No Longer Send
Comments 8 8 https://www.cpars.gov
Slide 26
BUILDING STRONG CPARS Timeline 26 Day 61 After Eval Sent to CR
Day 120 After End of Period of Performance 9 9 AO Must Either: -
Close Eval (Eval Updated in PPIRS) - Modify & Close Eval (Eval
Updated in PPIRS) - Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as
Pending) - Modify & Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as
Pending) AO Must Either: - Close Eval (Eval Updated in PPIRS) -
Modify & Close Eval (Eval Updated in PPIRS) - Send Eval to RO
(Eval Updated in PPIRS as Pending) - Modify & Send Eval to RO
(Eval Updated in PPIRS as Pending) Note: Pending Marking Removed
When Eval Closed CR CONCURRED AO Must Either: - Send Eval to RO
(Eval Updated in PPIRS as Pending) - Modify & Send Eval to RO
(Eval Updated in PPIRS as Pending) AO Must Either: - Send Eval to
RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as Pending) - Modify & Send Eval to
RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as Pending) CR DID NOT CONCUR
https://www.cpars.gov
Slide 27
BUILDING STRONG CPARS Timeline 27 Prior to Day 121 After End of
Period of Performance RO Provides Comments & Closes Eval; Eval
Updated in PPIRS with Pending Marking Removed 10 The entire CPARS
evaluation process must be completed within 120 days of the end of
the period of performance! https://www.cpars.gov
Slide 28
BUILDING STRONG For More Information 28 www. cpars.gov