Brief to CON 301 on DoD s Past Performance Policy

Similar documents
Click to edit Master title style

Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award HQ R LRDR Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award For HQ R-0002

(Billing Code ) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Past. Performance Information Retrieval System Statistical Reporting

AIR FORCE SUSTAINMENT CENTER

Federal Past Performance Evaluations Is the New Deal a Square Deal?

Army Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Services

Lockheed Martin Comments and Recommendations

Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) Doing Business with the Defense Health Agency Information Brief

Small Business Participation Goal and Subcontracting Goals

SUBJECT: Better Buying Power 2.0: Continuing the Pursuit for Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending

PROCURE-TO-PAY. Capturing Performance CPARS/PPIRS-RC/FAPIIS

Module 2 Contract Planning in the FAR. Preview

Strategic Plan Accomplishments

National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Small Business Conference

PUBLIC NOTICE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS SUBMISSION

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

Air Force Materiel Command

Version 1.0. The Contract Management Standard Final Edition. Version 1.0

Enhancing Competition in Federal Acquisition

Version 1.0. The Contract Management Standard Final Edition. Version 1.0

Defense Pricing and Contracting Acquisition Exchange Program. Project Description #1

Overview: CON 260A. The Small Business Program Part A

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

The ABCs of Government Proposal Evaluation

UNCLASSIFIED RFP SECTIONS L&M. Table Exchange CONTRACTING OFFICERS & PROGRAM MANAGERS UNCLASSIFIED DISTRIBUTION A: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

A Parts Management Connection To Better Buying Power 2.0

HOWEVER, IT S NOT THAT SIMPLE.

STUDENT GUIDE. CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis. Unit 4, Lesson 1 Differences between Cost & Price Analysis

STUDENT GUIDE. CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis. Unit 4, Lesson 1 Differences between Cost & Price Analysis

RFP Sections L&M Exchange CONTRACTING OFFICERS & PROGRAM MANAGERS

SEC ESTABLISHMENT OF PANEL ON CONTRACTING INTEGRITY.

Market Research SD-5. Gathering Information about Commercial Products and Services. Defense Standardization Program Office December 2018 STDZ

TCAQ UNCLASSIFIED. Together, we deliver.

Defense Procurement & Acquisition Policy Acquisition Exchange Program. Project Description #1

Breakout Session #: A14 Presented by: Bridget Gauer. Date: July 24, 2017 Time: 11:15AM-12:30PM

STUDENT GUIDE. CON 170 Fundamentals of Cost & Price Analysis. Unit 5, Lesson 1 Cost Analysis Process, Players, and Business Systems

Contractor Manpower Reporting (CMR)

GUIDANCE FOR THE CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORTING SYSTEM (CPARS)

GMIG Courses and Course Descriptions

Past Performance Information Retrieval System Statistical Reporting Next Generation PPIRS-SR NG

Strategic Plan Accomplishments

CMMI A-Specification. Version 1.7. November, For CMMI Version 1.2. This document is controlled by the CMMI Steering Group.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC

February 1, Tonya Modlin Contracting Specialist Department of Veterans Affairs Spotsylvania Ave, Suite 400 Fredericksburg, VA 22408

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR APPRAISAL SUPPORT SYSTEM (CCASS) POLICY

PHASE 4 - Post-Award. Type of Feedback Type of Contract Feedback Category Feedback

Subcontract Management Certification Program (ScMCP ) SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL COMPETENCIES. SUBCONTRACT MANAGER (ScM)

Headquarters U.S. Air Force

Preparing for a CPSR Audit

Using CMMI with Defense Acquisition

Performance-Based Service Acquisition

DCMA MANUAL PLANT CLEARANCE

NUWCDIVNPT SeaPort-e Council Meeting

USDA Farm Service Agency Commodity Operations. Patrick Dardis Kansas City Commodity Office

The Next 20 Years: Strategic Considerations when Pursuing a Follow-on GSA Schedule Contract

The following commercial specification is an original Parachute Industry Association specification.

Naval Surface Warfare Center Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD) Industry Day 2016 Contracts

Best Practices for Source Selection Planning

RETTEW Associates, Inc. QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN. for. (client project/rfp number) (date of proposal submission)

Current Practices are Threatening Past Performance as an Effective Tool

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we look forward to reviewing and submitting comments on the second Draft RFP.

GUIDANCE FOR THE CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORTING SYSTEM (CPARS)

PROSPECTIVE OFFEROR TO: PREAWARD SURVEYS. Defense Contract Management Agency WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW

#evaluate: The Quality- Infused Price Methodology

How to Use the Government Furnished Property Attachments: A Step-by-Step Tutorial

Instructions For Populating GFP Attachments

The DCARC UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED. DCARC Helpdesk Jen Horner (253) x1. Software and Web Development

Acquisition Planning

The Department of Defense (DoD) finds it difficult to determine when higher. Tools for Deciphering Best Value. William Sims Curry

AWARD TERM PLAN FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES SUPPORT ACTIVITY (SOFSA) USZA22-03-D APRIL 2003

Top 5 Systems Engineering Issues within DOD and Defense Industry

As a state agency, the College administration is required to develop procedures for Construction Manager selection.

DEFENSE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AGENCY Department of Defense INSTRUCTION. Strategic Planning

Surviving Contract Closeout

Report of the Reliability Improvement Working Group Table of Contents

PAGE 3 OF 7 SPRPA1-12-D-001Y ORDER 5000 PART I - THE SCHEDULE SECTION D PACKAGING AND MARKING

Getting Business from Government Agencies

DLA Troop Support Pre-Proposal Conference

(Billing Code ) Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Past. Performance Information Retrieval System Statistical Reporting

DATA ITEM DESCRIPTION TITLE: TRAINING EVALUATION DOCUMENT Number: DI-PSSS-81524C Approval Date:

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Guidebook for the Acquisition of Services

Top Software Engineering Issues in the Defense Industry

P031OO -os- m? Office of the Inspector General uric QUALITY u^^ctbd i Department of Defense DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY COMPENSATION AUDITS

Given design trade studies, interpret the results to recommend the most cost-effective concept for development.

How to Order Software Using DoD ESI Contract Vehicles

Constructing a Price-to-Win 2011 ISPA/SCEA Conference, Albuquerque, NM Frank R. Flett, Senior Vice President MCR Technologies, LLC

Department of the Navy. Office of Small Business Programs. Briefer: Ms. Emily Harman Director, Department of the Navy

DI-MGMT-XXXXX (Technical Data DID) April 13, 2017

SUBJECT: Driving Innovation and Creating Jobs in Rural America through Biobased and Sustainable Product Procurement

MCMR-AAP-A 17 November 2016

Subject: GSAR Case 2015-G512: Unenforceable Commercial Supplier Agreement Terms Proposed Rule

DAU Hot Topics Forum on: Using commercial items to increase innovation, increase competition and lower costs

AFARS Appendix AA ARMY SOURCE SELECTION MANUAL

Lakehurst Small Business Roundtable General Meeting May/10/2016

Analysis of Alternatives from a Cost Estimating Perspective. Kirby Hom and Kenny Ragland

PROCURE-TO-PAY. Supplier Performance Risk System SPRS. Presented by: Alan Robinson (Navy) TRAINING SYMPOSIUM 2018

SPAWAR Paperless Initiatives Partnering for Success

GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING Crystal Gateway Marriott December 1, 2004

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Attachment# 1

Transcription:

Brief to CON 301 on DoD s Past Performance Policy DUSD - LeAntha Sumpter

Use of Contractor Past Performance Information by the Government (A Time Tested Idea) 1961 President Kennedy appointed the Bell Committee, a Blue Ribbon committee that recommended an exchange of information between agencies regarding contractor evaluations 1962 President directed an elaborate Contractor Performance Evaluation (CPE) system be devised 1970 President s Blue Ribbon Defense Panel cancelled CPE as costly and ineffective 1978 Air Force initiates a field test at four product divisions to test effectiveness of evaluating past performance 1981 Use of past performance without reliance on a formal system in source selections was one of the 32 Carlucci Initiatives 1984 Air Force test discontinued based on consensus that PPI collection must be efficient and include data from buying commands as well as administration officials 1984 The Competition in Contracting Act was passed advocating the use of past performance 1986 President Reagan s Packard commission recommended that law and regulation should include increased use of commercial style competition emphasizing quality and established performance as well as price

1987 Air Force conducts Project STAR study that concluded use of PPI was ineffective because it was inconsistent and thus unreliable 1988 Air Force initiated the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) as a command wide performance data base. 1989 Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, chartered a joint OSD-DoD task force to expand the CPAR concept DOD-wide that concluded a mandatory DoD-wide system was not feasible 1993 The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) issued Policy Letter 92-5 requiring the executive agencies to collect and use past performance information 1994 The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) signed into law 1995 FAR coverage and the OFPP Draft Best Practices Guide on Past Performance published 1995 USD(A&T) approved a study contract that recommended collection of PPI by business sector 1995 DFAR coverage was drafted 1996 Air Force and Navy Aeronautical sector develops a joint CPARS format 1996 DFAR case was withdrawn due to lack of consensus on methodology among the components 1997 USD(A&T) issues new policy on collection of PPI and the FAR 15 rewrite team generates new guidance for the use of PPI Use of Contractor Past Performance Information by the Government (cont d)

Evolutionary Issues PPI must be current and relevant Contractors should always be allowed to provide PPI in their proposal PPI should be unbiased Personal opinions are not appropriate Solicitations should clearly state how and what they intend to use in the source selections criteria Evaluation weight and type of information Collection methodologies must be consistent Contractors must have an opportunity to rebut negative or adverse information obtained from any source (e.g., report cards, surveys, phone calls) Contractors must not be disadvantaged for the lack of PPI

DoD Objectives for Collection and Use of Past Performance Information Provides: DoD the opportunity to discriminate during source selection among offerors based on prior performance Contractors an additional incentive to perform on existing contracts A tool for communication and feedback to both government and industry

DoD s Past Performance Policy Starts a DoD pilot automation effort and training Identifies regulatory refinements Stipulates a common 5 - point DoD rating system for key business sectors Designates existing passive collection systems as source for majority of operations support information Establishes assessment elements for key business sectors Defines Key and Unique Business Sectors Decision that Past Performance Information will be collected by business sector

DoD s Business Sectors Key Business Sectors Systems Unique Business Sectors Health Care Fuels Services/Information Technology Operations Support Construction, Architectural & Engineering Services Science & Technology

COLLECTION OF PPI FOR KEY BUSINESS SECTORS SYSTEMS Collection threshold-$5m 13 Evaluation Elements/Sub- Elements (Tailoring as Appropriate) Information Sorted by 7 Sectors OPERATIONS SUPPORT Report Card threshold - $5M Use Passive Collection Systems for All Other Dollar Values Information Will be Sorted Using FSC Codes SERVICES (including Information Technology) Collection threshold $1M Information Sorted Using 23 Service FSC Codes 5 Standard Elements

Assessment Elements and Ratings Assessment Elements for for the the Systems Sector Technical (Quality of of Product) Product Product Performance Performance Systems Systems Engineering Engineering Software Software Engineering Engineering Logistic Logistic Support/Sustainment Product Product Assurance Assurance Other Other Technical Technical Performance Performance Schedule Cost Cost Control Management Management Management Responsiveness Responsiveness Subcontract Subcontract Management Management Program Program Management Management and and Other Other Management Management Assessment Elements for for the the Services, Information Technology and and Operations Support Quality of of Product or or Service Schedule Cost Cost Control Business Relations Management of of Key Key Personnel Common DoD DoD Assessment Rating System Exceptional Very Very Good Good Satisfactory Marginal Unsatisfactory

Past Performance Information (PPI) Regulatory Basics for Collection of PPI All PPI assessments must be sent to the contractor for a minimum of 30 days for comments Agencies must provide for an independent review at a level above the assessing official to consider disagreements Final PPI assessments must be provided to the contractor Input on PPI should come from the technical, programmatic and contracts team Annual and final PPI assessments are required PPI is treated as source selection sensitive information PPI is retained for 3 years after contract completion

Automation Vision Capitalize on Use of Legacy Systems Develop A Central Retrieval Capability Allow for Distributed Collection Sites Ensure Compatibility with Standard Procurement and Central Contractor Registration Systems Refine Existing Passive Collections Systems before Implementing Department-wide Automation is is Key to to Efficient Collection and Use of of Past Performance Information across DoD

Past Performance FAR 15 Highlights Re-establishes the current collection and use thresholds. Relevant information can include key personnel who have relevant experience, information regarding predecessor companies, and subcontractors. Clarifications, communications and discussions now include relevance of an offeror s past performance information and adverse past performance information the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment on. Neutral Ratings - language changed to reflect statute When an offeror has no record of relevant past performance or information is unavailable, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Future Targets of Opportunity (Past Performance Policy) Correlation between award fee and past performance assessments Combining all past performance collection and use policy in one source document Policy on PPI obtained external to proposals and regular report cards Surveys (Rebuttals, Sharing/Recording of Information) Passive data sources and methods Guidance on mergers and acquisitions and associated issues of relevancy Consideration of subcontractor PPI