Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'cpars'.
Found 4 results
Joseph Petrillo posted a blog entry in Patterns of ProcurementStatute and regulation prevent public access to contractor past performance information. That said, contractors who contest poor performance reviews in Court or at a board may unintentionally put themselves at risk to have the details of the matter released in a public decision. Such was the case for Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, whose recent protest at the COFC inadvertently lead to their performance issues becoming a matter of public record. The case serves as a cautionary tale for other contractors considering whether to contest a poor performance review. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
Joseph Petrillo posted a blog entry in Patterns of ProcurementThe Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) allows agencies to rate the contractors with which they do business. A poor CPARS rating is a fairly serious matter for contractors, and can impair them from getting future contracts. Fortunately, contractors who feel they’ve unfairly received a negative review can file a claim under the Contract Disputes Act. But the process for attempting to correct a negative rating can be arduous, and relief is limited. The case of Vanquish Worldwide, LLC v. United States of America provides a solid template of what to do – and what not to do – for contractors who find themselves in a similar situation. Read the full article at Petrillo & Powell's Patterns of Procurement.
The Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) is a tool used by federal agencies to record their evaluations of contractors’ performance. A poor evaluation will jeopardize a contractor’s chance of winning new contract awards. Contractors can respond to poor evaluations by providing input when they feel they’ve been unfairly assessed. Yet in the recent case of CompuCraft, a successful appeal to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals found that there were limits to how completely they could correct their poor evaluation. Nonetheless, their efforts at redressing their improper negative rating provide an important template for other contractors who find themselves in similar circumstances. CompuCraft, Inc., CBCA No., 2017., Mar. 1, 2017 View the full article here.
All I received a CPARS that was not so favorable. I schedule a meeting with the contracting officer and discussed and most of the rating areas we were able to get worked out. The one area for which we couldn't reach agreement was schedule. During the rating period there were quality issues identified during production related to parts received from a supplier during the last three months of the contract. We identified the problem with the part and notified the government right away that there was an issue and that we were performing root cause analysis and finding a work around but that this issue would delay deliveries. We found an agreeable work around and submitted a revised schedule which basically pushed everything out 30 days. We asked for and received a schedule modification in accordance with the plan and offered/paid consideration which was accepted by the government. At CPARS my company received a "marginal" rating on schedule because of this. My argument is that we delivered to the modified schedule. Since the contract was modified there were officially no late deliveries. The government contends that for legal purposes the deliveries were on time but the modification to contract doesn't erase our late deliveries from their memories which allows them to rate accordingly for CPARS. I responded then that there is very little incentive for a contractor to pay consideration for date changes if they still get dings on past performance. Additionally, the government PM argued that the marginal rating was given because the issue effected all of the contracts remaining deliveries. I informed that given the number of remaining months to contract, and our maximum production capacity, there was no way for us to recover without impacting the balance of the schedule. For example. Say the contract was for 85 units per month and our maximum capacity was 100 with no fails or reworks, it would be impossible for us to get back on schedule with only 3 months remaining on the contract. Even if everything went perfectly, the best we could do is shave two weeks off the final delivery month. The entire argument seems illogical to me. The CPARS has been revised but this schedule ding remains. It just doesn't seem right to me. Is there any reference on schedule ratings when there have been delivery date changes.