MrJP

35 minutes ago, Neil Roberts said:

If the deliverable items are critical and not easily re-obtained in the event of non-performance, I suggest you request a written plan from the company with milestones dates for the correction, re-review and re-assessment of system approval. You should monitor this and meet with them regularly about progress. You may also want to consider requesting a performance bond from the company.  

Thank you, Neil, for your response.

You nailed it!  I appreciate your understanding of my concerns.  I was the only person in my group with this concern, so I was beginning to doubt myself.  However,  you just confirmed my concerns - glad to know I am not loosing it after all.  Take Care!

2 hours ago, here_2_help said:

Adding to Vern's questions --

What are your concerns? What risks do you see, against which you would like assurance?

Fundamentally, I don't see ANY ADDITIONAL way to "ensure performance" because any contract/subcontract you have already awarded requires performance. Do you think another signed letter is somehow going to reduce the risk of nonperformance? I don't think so.

I'd like you to answer Vern's questions so I know where you're coming from, but I don't think you're going to get to where you say you want to go.

+++

Let me add that contractors fail CPSRs frequently. Sometimes for tickey-tack reasons and sometimes for very valid systemic reasons. It happens; and it happens to the biggest contractors as well as the smaller contractors.

Not much changes, except for consent requirements. Plus the contractor then dedicates a portion of its purchasing team (and leadership team) to developing and executing a corrective action plan, instead of spending time doing purchasing.

Hi Here2Help,

Thank you for your response.  As I just replied to Vern, the "we" in my question is a Govt contractor, not a Govt agency.  So, we are the Buyer in the relationship and the company is the Seller.

My concern was succinctly expressed by Neil Roberts in his response relative to critical deliverable end-items not easily re-obtained in the event of non-performance; especially in light of the issue you addressed at the end of your response - Seller's focus will be primarily on trying to regain approval of their purchasing system.

12 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Who is "we"? Are you the CO? A COR?

Hi Vern,

Thank you for your quick response.  To answer your question, the "we" in my question is a Govt contractor, not a Govt agency.  So, we are the Buyer in the relationship and the company is the Seller.

What should we do to ensure performance from a company that just lost approval of their purchasing system as a result of a recent CPSR?

Is requesting "Assurance of Performance" sufficient, or should we do something else?

How does one distinguish between FAR/DFARS clauses to be flowed down by reference vs. in full text?

Correct...  We are hoping DCMA will maintain some consistency in the surveillance process.

Brief background: We were supposed to have our first surveillance this week.  Our CACO initially requested 75 PO files (hard-copy files knowing we have a 100% SAP paperless approved purchasing system).  When we gingerly pushed-back, the CACO changed the count to 45.  We believe the sample size is still too high based on what we understand from talking to other industry representatives (i.e., Avg. 20/25).  The CACO has also stated that the review will be formal, with weekly meetings, and it will continue through Dec 2016.  We believe this is too long and it will disrupt our regular work.   

We are trying to find-out what everyone else's experience has been - that's all. 

For those of you who have had recent annual surveillances by your ACO/CACO (or delegate)... 

(1) how many PO files have they requested?

2) how formal has the surveillance process been (e.g., is there a report, expectation of a reply, and a  final determination)?, and

3) how long has the reviews lasted (e.g., # of days, # of weeks, # of months)?

Thank you for your help!

The previous CPSR teams did not share any evidence of records reviewed, but we noticed they were taking lots of notes on their laptops.  Yes, they may have taken print screen shots, but can't confirm that information.  Also, in my experience of CPSRs prior to the Business Systems Rule, when we had hard-copy PO files, I don't recall ever providing them with copies of the entire PO files, just individual documents; and they took copious notes.  

Sorry, it was the CACO (Corporate Administrative Contracting Officer), not the DACO (Divisional Administrative Contracting Officer) who wrote the e-mail.  However, your recommendation is still valid and I will recommend same to my management. 

I agree with you that the best course of action in our business is to be formal and to strictly adhere to contractual relationships.  Once parties begin to 'drop their guard,' things (sometimes) tend to  get messy with blurred roles and responsibilities.  Thanks, again, for your help!

Thank you, Vern, for your quick response, and for your excellent recommendation.

I just verified the information and it was The DACAO (not one of his minions) that stated in an e-mail to our Compliance manager that he will ask the CPSR team to perform the surveillance review if we do not make the hard-copy PO files available for him to conduct the review.  Apparently he wants to take the PO files back to his office because he doesn't have time to sit in our designated audit office to review the files on our laptop. 

This has been our process for years and every other agency (including DCAA) complies with this process.  In fact, the last 2 CPSR teams reviewed all the e-PO files from the designated laptop in a conference room without a problem. 

Brief Background:

Our DCMA/CACO requested hard-copy of 45 PO files (initially requested 70) in preparation for a surveillance review.  We have an approved purchasing system that is 100% electronic/paperless.  We've had a paperless SAP system since 2011.

Question:

Is there a regulation or guidance that supports the DCMA/CACO request?   If, No... how would you suggest we respond to our CACO without upsetting him? 
He has threaten to recommend a full CPSR if we do not provide the hard-copy PO files.