Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'past performance'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • What Happened?
    • Polls
    • COVID-19 And Its Effect on Contracting
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Recommended Reading
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMA HQ Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement
  • NIH NITAAC Blog

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 14 results

  1. 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 nega
  2. FAR 15.305 says past performance is indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. This suggests that there may be other indicators. If a RFP uses past performance as an evaluation factor, not a broader factor of "indicators of ability to perform", would it withstand a protest seeking to have the RFP re-written to allow other indicators of ability to perform? The argument is that the evaluation factor is unreasonably narrow.
  3. On my way into work this morning, NPR aired a segment on making better predictions (http://www.npr.org/2016/09/01/492203116/want-to-make-better-predictions-researchers-explore-where-we-go-wrong). The research (http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1074/) was focused on predicting sporting events and in cases where more details were given or required to be assessed, individuals made (some) worse predictions. Disclaimer: I haven't completely read the dissertation (it's an EOFY work day and the dissertation is 200+ pgs...), but I couldn't help sharing due to its applicability to the contra
  4. Hello WIFCON folks, I had an interesting conversation today in regards to past performance evaluations (in the context of FAR part 15). The question is that if an offeror submits past performance that, when evaluated, is determined to be NOT relevant in size, scope, and complexity should this Offeror's past performance be looked at in the context of "Neutral" or not rated favorably or unfavorably per FAR13.305(a)(2)(iv)? I believe that their was a misinterpretation of the FAR and GAO cases today in my discussion. I believe that if an offeror submits past performance to a RFP and that
  5. A solicitation requires offerors to submit Past Performance. It further states that the agency will consider the Past Performance of the offerors' proposed subcontractors if it is submitted. One of the offerors submits a proposal containing the past performance of its subcontractor. The past performance is considered Very Relevant, and the PP surveys are all "Excellent." The evaluators rate the offeror's Past Performance as "Neutral." Why? They say that, because the glowing Past Performance was done by the subcontractor, not the prime, and there is always a general risk that the prime will
  6. Offeror Acme submits a timely proposal to a solicitation. Acme's proposal contains a Past Performance (PP) Volume with narrative describing its performance on Three Past Contracts. On Past Contract #1, Acme described it as a $30 million total value contract for 5 years. Acme sends Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to its PP references. Those PP references fill out the PPQs and provide them to the agency. When the agency reviews the PPQs, it finds the reference for Past Contract #1 states that the Past Contract #1 was for $24 million for 3 years. Assume that Past Contract #1 was a co
  7. A solicitation stated in Section L that offerors with no "Corporate" PP could submit, if they wanted to, "Key Personnel" PP. Section L further instructed that such KP PP references who filled out the PPQ's had to be a person who had "direct oversight" over that KP. Several offerors who are incumbents submitted KP PP. However, the POC reference they list is the agency CO who is the CO for the current recompete solicitation. For some reason, the offerors did not list the COR/COTR folks. The CO believes himself to have had no "direct oversight" over the KP, which is true, and in fact, he has
  8. The solicitation instructed offerors to demonstrate the "relevance" of their Past Performance references/past contract work. The solicitation defined levels of "relevance" by doing X number of units of a certain service "on a monthly basis." Offeror "A" submitted a proposal that said it did 3,000 units per month under a past contract. However, when the evaluators looked at the PPQ submitted by the PP POC, the PPQ said "A" did only 200 units per month. In determining the "relevance" of this PP, should the evaluators base their decision on what the Offeror said in their proposal, or what the
  9. Is it reasonable to find 1 month of Past Performance "relevant"? The scenario is a solicitation where offerors were required to submit past performance references for work that was ongoing or completed within the past 3 years from the closing date of the solicitation. Say Offeror ABC Company submitted only 1 PP reference, and it was for a recently awarded contract on which they had been performing for only 1 month. In Chenega Technical Products, LLC, B-295451.5, Jun. 22, 2005, GAO addressed this scenario where the agency involved found that 1 month of PP was not very relevant: ". . . Chenega
  10. Question is from the agency's POV: An agency has a solicitation. Offeror A submits a timely proposal. In its proposal, Offeror A lists 3 Past Performance references. The agency emails all 3 references a PP Questionnaire about Offeror A. All 3 references respond by returning the Questionnaire filled out. At this point, the agency CO realizes that 1 of the 3 references turns out to be a proposed subcontractor for the current solicitation by the agency. What should the CO do?
  11. I'm convinced the government's past performance process needs a major overhaul. In theory, it's a good concept. In practice, it's often useless. Just looks at CPARS reports and it's rare to find a bad rating. I've heard many COs say they and program managers don't tell the complete truth because it's too difficult dealing with repercussions. Now here's some refreshing way to address poor contract performance. This is a Steve Kelman commentary on GSA's lease of the Old Post Office Building in Washington DC. http://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2014/06/trump-develops-old-post-office.aspx This is on
  12. Say there is a solicitation. The basis of award is best value (Tradeoff). Past Performance is one of the non-price factors. The solicitation says the following in Section M for the Past Performance Factor: The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture partners’ contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence rating should the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ past and present performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture partner’s three contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is con
  13. In ABSG Consulting, Inc., B-407956, B-407956.2 (Apr. 18, 2013), the GAO held that an offeror who is the incumbent contractor is not entitled to "extra credit" in its past performance evaluation rating just for being the incumbent. See http://www.gao.gov/products/B-407956,B-407956.2. But the GAO did not address this question: can the government choose to, if it wants to, give "extra credit" to an offeror for its past performance rating, or any other evaluation factor, such as the technical approach factor, corporate experience factor, just for being the incumbent, and therefore, the offeror wh
  14. Can anyone think of a reason why past performance would not be considered in a contract award? I always thought that price and past performance was automatically always an evaluation factor and then you added whatever other factors might pertain to the solicitation. Today I saw a solicitation for a service by the Air Force in FBO where it plainly stated that past performance was not a factor and to make it clearer they used italics to state that it would not be evaluated and the only evaluation criteria would be price. What could the protest implications be? There are a number of cases whe
×
×
  • Create New...