Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

The DFARS was recently changed to require the evaluation of past performance when acquiring supplies under FAR 13.5. See paragraph ( b )(i)( B ):

213.106–2 Evaluation of quotations or offers.

(b ) (i) For competitive solicitations for supplies using FAR part 13 simplified acquisition procedures, including acquisitions valued at less than or equal to $1 million under the authority at FAR subpart 13.5, the contracting officer shall—

(A) Consider data available in the statistical reporting module of the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS–SR) regarding the supplier’s past performance history for the Federal supply class (FSC) and product or service code (PSC) of the supplies being purchased. Procedures for the use of PPIRS–SR in the evaluation of quotations or offers are provided in the PPIRS–SR User’s Manual available under the references section of the PPIRS Web site at www.ppirs.gov;

(B ) Ensure the basis for award includes an evaluation of each supplier’s past performance history in PPIRS–SR for the FSC and PSC of the supplies being purchased; and

(C ) In the case of a supplier without a record of relevant past performance history in PPIRS–SR for the FSC or PSC of the supplies being purchased, the supplier may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for its past performance history.

Why is this limited solely to supplies, and not to services?

Also, why is there a special mention of actions valued at less than or equal to $1 million?

213.106–2–70 Solicitation provision.

Use the provision at 252.213–7000, Notice to Prospective Suppliers on the Use of Past Performance Information Retrieval System—Statistical Reporting in Past Performance Evaluations, in competitive solicitations for supplies when using FAR part 13 simplified acquisition procedures, including competitive solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items and acquisitions valued at less than or equal to $1 million under the authority at FAR subpart 13.5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For background on DFARS Case 2014-D015, see the proposed rule at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/29/2015-01436/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-past-performance-information-retrieval

See the final rule at:

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/05/26/2015-12339/defense-federal-acquisition-regulation-supplement-past-performance-information-retrieval

It is also accessible through the WIFCON Rules and Tools Page. Thanks, Bob

P.S., I don't know the answers to napolik's questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

The DFARS was recently changed to require the evaluation of past performance when acquiring supplies under FAR 13.5. See paragraph ( b )(i)( B ):

Why is this limited solely to supplies, and not to services?

My guess is that it's because past performance is a more objective, straightforward assessment for supply contracts than it is for service contracts -- the delivery was on time or it wasn't; it was to the right place or it wasn't; the supplies conformed or they didn't. My guess is that they wanted to keep it simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Also, why is there a special mention of actions valued at less than or equal to $1 million?"

(Sorry, I'm new and don't know how to get those cool quote boxes).

The Deviation at DFARS 215.304(c )(3)(i)( B) says past performance must be evaluated "for services and information technology acquisitions expected to exceed $1,000,000."

The final rule that Joel linked to says, "This rule will help fill the gap between the higher DoD threshold for the collection and evaluation of past performance information and the thresholds at FAR 15.304(c )(3)(i)" (which is the SAT).

So basically, I think it's saying evaluation of past performance for supplies is so important (and simpler - as Vern mentioned) that you can't use the Test Program at 13.5 as a loophole to get around not evaluating past performance if it's less that $1 million.

That's my best guess anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...