Monetizing Service Acquisition Tradeoffs

[Jamaal Valentine]

An interesting article in light of the timing of its publication and the release of the latest DoD SSP [ref Appendix B] .

http://dau.dodlive.mil/2016/04/05/evaluate-monetizing-service-acquisition-trade-offs-using-the-quality-infused-price-methodology/

Any thoughts on the article?

[Boof]

I think it is way to complicated for even the above average CO.  Maybe for all but the Superstar COs.  Plus it will be more time consuming and we don't have that time.  The article says you can't trust past performance reports and then uses versions of them in the calculations.  This may be usable if an agency puts together a full acquisition team and gives them a year to work one acquisition. I think this should happen on huge service contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars but I do not see it from my vantage point.   

[here_2_help]

If you can't trust past performance reports, what does that say about the evaluations of past performance?

A heck of a lot of time and effort and energy and taxpayer dollars have gone into CPARS and FAPISS and all the other process enablers. Are you telling me it was all wasted? If so, who should be held accountable?

[Guest Vern Edwards]

The problem is extreme bureaucratization in the name of "fairness."

The government seeks a perfect world of past performance reporting and evaluation in which it strives for evidence-based objectivity in performance assessments. The goal is to prevent de facto debarment. Despite slogans in FAR, government personnel are not trusted to use business judgment in such matters, because it might hamper full and open competition.

It is difficult to get ordinary, busy people to make detailed records of events, to write detailed explanations and justifications of their opinions about them, and to prepare themselves to defend their opinions in the face of challenges. They can't just say, in private, "Those guys sucked for these reasons" and let the recipients of those assessments make their own decisions about how reliable the report is. No, the government wants a "system," or in this case, two systems, CPARS and FAPISS. That's the death knell for for what is fundamentally a common sense idea.

I wonder how many private sector firms that are not government contractors or subcontractors set up such systems under such rules.

You can have protective red tape or you can have efficiency, but it remains to be seen whether it is possible to simultaneously optimize both.

[here_2_help]

The private sector firms (government contractors) that I've worked with have created their own vendor rating systems. The systems are used (primarily) (1) to identify approved (single source or SCD) vendors who need additional "help" to address quality or delivery concerns, and/or (2) to identify "preferred" vendors in the case of two or more vendors who can perform the work. It's an indicator, and it's used that way. The systems tend to be streamlined and as user-friendly as possible, because the companies want to make it easy for the buyers to update the ratings when appropriate to do so.

Of course, my experience is limited so I can only report anecdotally.

 

[ji20874]

H2H,

Yes, CPARS is a waste.  It does not allow COs to record honest observations -- the appeals/review process erases any value.  

[Guest Vern Edwards]

I don't know how many people are aware, but DOD had a formal past performance rating system in the early 1960s, described in DOD Directive 5126.38, "Program of Contractor Performance Evaluation," Aug. 1, 1963, and Armed Services Procurement Regulation (ASPR) 1.908.3. There were seven evaluation forms for things like schedule performance and technical performance, and a final report was required. The report was retained for seven years. The system was eliminated in 1971 with the cryptic explanation, "[t]he benefits derived from CPR were not sufficient to warrant the cost involved."