Jump to content

Can agency withdraw finalized CPAR?


Recommended Posts

Hello all:

Not able to find the answer for this question.  Went through CPARs guide, all the training, the agency's own policy, and the FAR 42.  Situation:

New contractor. First direct contract with USG.  The contractor failed to understand the CPAR process and never commented on negative CPAR.  CPAR was finalized (final for the entire contract).  The notifications went to an employee who was no longer with the company.  Contractor totally at fault, but the CPAR was in bad faith and the rating was inconsistent with all the other action by the Government, including paying full fee (CPFF Completion) for "satisfactory" performance. The contractor can not dispute since they failed to respond within the timelines but is appealing to the agency.   Question:  is there a way under any circumstances where the agency is able (i.e. is such an action even allowed) to withdraw a finalized CPAR from the system to revise?  Would this be only a Procurement Executive level decision?

Thank you for any insights.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, C Culham said:

No insight but my mind went to why the HCA or higher, why not the CO?   Did a little research and found this.   https://www.asbca.mil/Decisions/2021/62586 Skyquest Aviation, LLC 1.7.21 Decision.pdf

So try and see if the CO would consider a change, if not then maybe file a claim under the Disputes Act.

I do not think they have grounds for a dispute since they failed to act before the CPAR was final, but they think they may be able to appeal to Ombudsman or HCA but I am not clear on whether the agency can retract a CPAR once it has been finalized. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Even though the contracting officer may have been the assessing official, filing a "claim" and requesting a "final decision" is separate from the contractor comments process, and required under the CDA."

"Neither a Board nor the Court will rewrite a CPARS report, but they can issue declaratory relief if a CPARS report was unfair, inaccurate, arbitrary, or capricious. The Armed Services Board of Contracts Appeals, moreover, has stated it will send a CPARS report back to the contracting officer with a requirement to follow applicable regulations and provide a fair and accurate performance evaluation. But to succeed you should not rely on only procedural errors. You should further show prejudice, i.e., that the ratings and evaluations would have been different but for the demonstrated errors in the CPARS report."

Challenging Unfair CPARS Evaluations (americanbar.org)

Although not sure, this language indicates the dispute process is different from the CPARS comments process, so it may be irrelevant that you did not make any comments on the CPARS.  I do not see why the report could not be changed.

Also,

How to Contest a CPARS Evaluation | Government Contract Attorneys, SDVOSB Law (manfredonialaw.com)

That indicates a court or board will not entertain the question unless the contractor has asked for a final decision from the CO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

I do not think they have grounds for a dispute since they failed to act before the CPAR was final, but they think they may be able to appeal to Ombudsman or HCA but I am not clear on whether the agency can retract a CPAR once it has been finalized. 

( This response was done when bosgood replied.  I elected to not change my post, just send it.  Of sorts it follows the thinking of bosgood.)

You will do what you think best but I wonder.   

Where in the contract does it require the contractor to reply within 14 days and as such failure to do so cancels the rights of a contractor to dispute a final CPARS evaluation?   My read of CDA supports that the statute of limitations is generally 6 years.   It would seem that unless there was a contract clause where the contractors rights to file a claim under CDA for a final CPARS evaluation is some how released that there would be grounds.   I say this noting that if the evaluation is wrong in the eyes of the contractor and there is adequate evidence to support that it is wrong it would seem there are grounds for a following the dispute process.  

Another element that I will throw in is the reminder that the government can reject a contractors opinion expressed within the 14 days and do the CPARS as they wish.  A contractors comments will be include but the government has the final say on the rating.   Case law supports that in such situations CDA is an avenue the contractor can pursue to change the rating.

It just seems to me that either way, inclusion of comments or actual change of the rating is a matter that could be pursued via CDA regardless of the fact that the contractor did not reply with in the allotted 14 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to the original question:  It would seem apparent to me that, if a court or board could direct a revision to an incorrect contractor rating, the KO could -on their own- revise the rating.

Why put everyone, including the parties and board or court,  through the time and expense of a dispute, if the KO agrees that the rating was unfair or incorrect**.

The HQ US Army Corps of Engineers Office of Counsel has long advocated mutually resolving issues at the lowest level, avoiding formal claims/disputes. Unnecessary legal proceedings are wasteful of time, resources and money for all sides

**”Contractor totally at fault [for not commenting within 14 days? For not providing updated official company contact information?], but the CPAR was in bad faith and the rating was inconsistent with all the other action by the Government, including paying full fee (CPFF Completion) for "satisfactory" performance.”

EDIT: my first thought was that, if this was the contractors first government contract plus “the notifications were sent to a person who was no longer with the company”, were the procedures too informal, considering that the CPARS rating was negative with probable impacts to the Company? Was that person the only official contact address for formal, important contract communications? 

Edit: See FAR 42.1503 Procedures.

“…(f) The Government shall update CPARS with any contractor comments provided after 14 days, as well as any subsequent agency review of comments received.”

Edited by joel hoffman
Added FAR 42.1503 reference, asterisk note and paragraph preceding the reference .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

Question:  is there a way under any circumstances where the agency is able (i.e. is such an action even allowed) to withdraw a finalized CPAR from the system to revise?  Would this be only a Procurement Executive level decision?

According to the CPARS User Manual, pp. 37-38, it appears that an "assessing official" can "modify" a rating even after it has been "validated and closed." I presume the policy and procedure for doing that varies from one agency to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started to post something similar to what Joel Hoffman just said.  Why don’t you just meet with the contracting officer and perhaps their management and explain everything?

Also, to be blunt, this seems to indicate your company isn’t starting out doing business with the government on a good note.  Regardless of the reasons for the CPARS rating, the rating shows performance problems from at least the CPARS evaluators.  Your company fell short in their eyes.  Really CPARS results shouldn’t come as a surprise if the contractor is closely interfacing and communicating with the government.  This allows the contractor to fix performance issues timely and responsively.  The manner in which the CPARS process was handled by your company is indicative that things went wrong.

If I were you, I would meet with the government as soon as possible.  Forget about disputes and courts.  Use this as a learning experience.  Seek government feedback on what your company needs to do better.  Hopefully the government will revise the CPARS.  But if not, at least you gained knowledge on what you need to do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

It just seems to me that either way, inclusion of comments or actual change of the rating is a matter that could be pursued via CDA regardless of the fact that the contractor did not reply with in the allotted 14 days.

I'm not sure what that means, but under the CDA neither a board of contract appeals nor the Court of Federal Claims can grant a specific performance remedy. They could not order an agency to include comments or change a rating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

New contractor. First direct contract with USG.

 

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

Also, to be blunt, this seems to indicate your company isn’t starting out doing business with the government on a good note.  

Unless her status has changed recently, the Tzarina does not work for the contractor in question. I think she posted on someone's behalf.

Furthermore, it's easy to criticize new contractors for being clueless about government contracting, but the truth is that government contracting is a nightmare of voluminous complexity. And, let's be honest, at least half the "government contracting professionals" are almost as clueless as new contractors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

 And, let's be honest, at least half the "government contracting professionals" are almost as clueless as new contractors.

So true Vern.  Being honest, I was also a little clueless at times during my first few years as a new contractor.  This was after 30 years as an 1102.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

I'm not sure what that means, but under the CDA neither a board of contract appeals nor the Court of Federal Claims can grant a specific performance remedy. They could not order an agency to include comments or change a rating.

Okay maybe not a ruling  to change the rating but they could "remand to require the contracting officer to follow applicable regulations and provide appellant a fair and accurate performance evaluation."  Reference PROTEC GmbH, ASBCA No. 61161.

@joel hoffman @formerfed  Just to be clear  I think you have taken my insights out of context.   In my first post I stated "So try and see if the CO would consider a change, if not then maybe file a claim under the Disputes Act.".   So like you I advocate for a discussion with the CO first and then as stated in my second post " I say this noting that if the evaluation is wrong in the eyes of the contractor and there is adequate evidence to support that it is wrong it would seem there are grounds for a following the dispute process."   Maybe I should have said "file a claim" or better yet I should have just quoted FAR 33.204 and left it at that.   So in context filing a claim and an appeal would be the last order of business if the contractor disagreed and wanted to exercise their ability for a remedy to a CPARS report that they fell is inaccurate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, formerfed said:

Also, to be blunt, this seems to indicate your company isn’t starting out doing business with the government on a good note.

 

27 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

And, let's be honest, at least half the "government contracting professionals" are almost as clueless as new contractors.

Interesting exchange.   So at first the blunt view is the government is right and the newbie contractor should just capitulate it as a lesson learned yet maybe the CO of record is in the half clueless category?   Either way it seems that the true guiding principle is the fairness standards of FAR part 1.   Even in the course of some mistakes a contractor should be treated fairly and it seems with the limited information provided that it would be fair for the government to give a second look at the evaluation.   It would also be fair that if the contractor still did not feel the review was done in accord with the CPARS rating matrix of FAR subpart 42.15, and CPARS guidance found elsewhere, the contractor has the fair right to file a claim and appeal any decision that is a result.    

As I indicated in one of my posts show me where a specific FAR clause says the contractor must follow the CPARS guidance, especially the 14 days?  Is not the guidance for the government?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, C Culham said:

As I indicated in one of my posts show me where a specific FAR clause says the contractor must follow the CPARS guidance, especially the 14 days?  Is not the guidance for the government? 

There is no FAR clause that implements CPARS. To the best of my knowledge a government contract does not mention CPARS unless an agency puts something in its contract. CPARS is a government data system. The contractor is not obligated to do anything. However...

According to the CPARS User Manual, page 41 - 42, a contractor "is allotted" 60 days to comment on the government's evaluation, and then:

Quote

Action Required: “Input Comments”, the Contractor Representative is allotted a 60-day review/comment period starting from the date and time the Assessing Official forwarded the evaluation. If the Contractor Representative does not provide comments within the 60-day period, the evaluation is then returned to the Assessing Official and the Contractor Representative no longer has access to enter comments. The Government will have to complete the evaluation without the Contractor Representative comments.

So, no, a contractor need not follow what you call "the CPARS guidance," i.e., the CPARS User Manual. But if it doesn't follow the Manual it ends up where Tzarina's client has ended up. And while the ASBCA says it has authority to remand a claim to the CO to follow the rules, it has acknowledged that it cannot order the CO to change the government's CPARS rating.

Filing a claim will cost money. A better course of action might be to file a complaint with a senator, House representative, or both and ask for intervention. Some agencies react sharply to a congressional inquiry, especially DOD.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super interesting.  @Vern Edwards (hi, Vern!) is correct, I do not work for the contractor, simply posting about a situation I am being asked to help with.   I know the agency in question has a CPARs guidance to its COs that says on page 1 - Discuss the CPARs system with the contractor during kick-off.....   🙂 This was never done for this very small business, which was the first time contractor, which actually applied under a BAA and was told by the agency that a CPFF term contract would be most appropriate for their concept - this was done as part of a so-called "co-creation" with the agency, in an effort to attract non-traditional contractors.  

So if I understand correctly - there is no FAR clause that implements CPARS (FAR 14.1503 just sets out procedures for the agency), how is a new contractor supposed to know that they will be reviewed and what the timelines are?  In this case they had no clue and they never once commented to any of the 4 CPARs received during contract performnace and the agency never asked "why" - do you think this would be a good argument to ask an Ombudsman or HCA to revert?  Thank you again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve met and worked with lots of HCAs and think most would be glad to meet and hear these issues.  But before doing that, gathering some basic intelligence about the agency and the key people is a good idea.  Get to know “the lay of the land” so to speak.  The contractor might start with the agency small business office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

how is a new contractor supposed to know that they will be reviewed and what the timelines are?

As you note typically through a pre-work ("kick-off") meeting. 

14 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

 In this case they had no clue and they never once commented to any of the 4 CPARs received during contract performnace and the agency never asked "why"

In my view, this additional information and the above noted lack of discussion with the contractor regarding CPARS suggests what was implied in a previous post, clueless agency.  By experience an entity that failed to respond was not just a matter of "Oh Well" there was communication with an entity as to why.

14 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

do you think this would be a good argument to ask an Ombudsman or HCA to revert?

I offered a response to this before so let me try a different thought process that leads to the same - Why not the  CO first?   Was there just a CO or was there a COR as well?  If a COR has the matter been raised to the CO as in most cases CO's put the effort on the COR and then the CO simply pushes the button.   If solely a CO have you brought the matter to CO's attention, in writing?   If just a CO do you think that the agency leadership puts much credit in CPARS anyways, or do they think it is just a step they go through to satisfy the requirement that a CPARS is to be done.   In other words gives value to CPARS as system that is to be used for gather  performance information to be used in future procurements?  By experience some agencies do use it for past performance information and others could care less about CPARS.

I completely understand you want to take the route that is considered to be less confrontational but I wonder.   How would a CO react to someone going to the HCA rather than addressing the matter direct to the CO?  Is not either route confrontational?   Remembering that the agency does not have to do anything to CPARS if they do not want to it would seem using a process, or suggesting that the process will be used, if the CO fails to correct, redo, whatever (and it really sounds like you want them to) that is described in FAR 33.204 would be better at getting the attention of the one that is charged with addressing the matter, the CO.

So maybe a letter to the CO (not yet a claim but suggests that it could come to that) that is copied to the HCA, the Ombudsman, the Small Business Rep, the SBA and the contractors congressional rep might be the route.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2023 at 3:09 PM, Tzarina of Compliance said:

Question:  is there a way under any circumstances where the agency is able (i.e. is such an action even allowed) to withdraw a finalized CPAR from the system to revise?  Would this be only a Procurement Executive level decision?

An answer to the original question:

22 hours ago, joel hoffman said:

See FAR 42.1503 Procedures.

“…(f) The Government shall update CPARS with any contractor comments provided after 14 days, as well as any subsequent agency review of comments received.”

Others have also responded with additional references to similar CPARS implantation policy. 
 

Tzarina has now added further information to indicate that there appears to be little or no government communication to the contractor about the CPARS process or it’s right to respond to such ratings.

We don’t know what, if any communications from the government occurred or whether the contractor did or didn’t have knowledge  of the interim or final ratings.

On 3/13/2023 at 3:09 PM, Tzarina of Compliance said:

The notifications went to an employee who was no longer with the company.

Note the plural “notifications”.

There seems to be much more to the story that hasn’t been revealed. We are getting snippets here. 

17 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

how is a new contractor supposed to know that they will be reviewed and what the timelines are?  In this case they had no clue and they never once commented to any of the 4 CPARs received during contract performnace and the agency never asked "why" - do you think this would be a good argument to ask an Ombudsman or HCA to revert?

What does “they had no clue” mean? They had no clue about what? Their performance? The government’s position concerning their performance? Knowledge of the ratings? That the communications were sent to a former employee not to the contractor?

What was the “Contractor totally at fault” for?

17 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

this very small business, which was the first time contractor, which actually applied under a BAA and was told by the agency that a CPFF term contract would be most appropriate for their concept - this was done as part of a so-called "co-creation" with the agency, in an effort to attract non-traditional contractors.

Is “BAA” a “Business Associate Agreement”? 

So this “very small business”, “first time contractor” was issued a cost plus fixed fee contract?????

On 3/13/2023 at 3:09 PM, Tzarina of Compliance said:

the rating was inconsistent with all the other action by the Government, including paying full fee (CPFF Completion) for "satisfactory" performance.

- with an agency with no apparent clue how or who to communicate with????

Did either party know how to manage and execute a CPFF contract? 

Based upon the sparse information provided, yes the government can revise the final CPARS rating. We don’t know much more than that.

We don’t know if the contractor has asked anyone or if they have asked the Contracting Officer to discus this. If they have discussed this, what did the person or the KO say? 

18 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

do you think this would be a good argument to ask an Ombudsman or HCA to revert?  Thank you again!

I agree with the other respondents.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Carl

That helps explains the CPFF contract approach.

Edited by joel hoffman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joel hoffman said:

Thanks, Carl

You bet Joel.   So "Kick Off Meeting".   Hmmm Maybe yes and maybe no - https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1323/ML13235A156.pdf

So maybe the first letter that informs the CO of the issues might also request the "Kick-Off Meeting" minutes.  Afterall if there was one you would think it would help highlight the non-discussion of performance valuation.

It would seem an argument for the future would be that the contractor was not afforded the opportunity to address adverse performance information and as such any reference to the instant contract regarding performance would in effect be off limits unless addressed in exchanges with the contractor for the future procurement - FAR 15.306.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tzarina of ComplianceI presume that what the contractor wants is (1) to submit comments on the CPARS rating, (2) to have the agency consider them, and (3) to persuade the agency to favorably revise the CPARS rating. I presume that the contractor considers the CPARS rating to be a serious problem.

In light of the fact that the contractor missed the deadline for submitting comments, I doubt that the bureaucracy will be moved by a mere request submitted to the contracting officer, although anything is possible. Thus, I recommend a full-court press.

The contractor should write to the CO, certified mail, return receipt requested, and (1) explain the situation, (2) explain the failure to comment within the time allotted, (3) make the comments on the rating, (4) explain the actual or prospective effect of the rating on the contractor's business prospects and on its employees, and (5) request that the CO favorably revise the rating. (The contractor may want to ask for help in writing a good letter. It should reflect well on the contractor's intelligence.)

The letter should not be accusatory or say anything about "bad faith" on the part of the agency. It should not blame anyone for anything. Treat the problem as a misunderstanding. Don't make threats. Don't give anyone any reason to be defensive. Politely ask for a response within 30 days. Thank the CO in advance for considering your request.

The letter to the CO should show that copies have been sent, USPS certified mail, return receipt requested, to:

  • the agency small business specialist,
  • the agency SBA procurement center representative,
  • the chief of the agency contracting office,
  • the head of the agency contracting activity,
  • the agency head,
  • the contractor's senators,
  • the contractor's House representative,
  • the contractor's attorney, and
  • any industry association to which the contractor belongs.

When sending copies of the letter to the senators and House representative, do so under a cover letter asking for their assistance in persuading the agency to consider its comments on the CPARS rating.

The idea should be to make the CO wonder if its worth the prospective trouble of refusing to revise the rating.

If what I have suggested doesn't work, then the contractor can try submitting a claim. It will need a lawyer. But that probably won't work either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

@Tzarina of ComplianceI presume that what the contractor wants is (1) to submit comments on the CPARS rating, (2) to have the agency consider them, and (3) to persuade the agency to favorably revise the CPARS rating. I presume that the contractor considers the CPARS rating to be a serious problem.

In light of the fact that the contractor missed the deadline for submitting comments, I doubt that the bureaucracy will be moved by a mere request submitted to the contracting officer, although anything is possible. Thus, I recommend a full-court press.

The contractor should write to the CO, certified mail, return receipt requested, and (1) explain the situation, (2) explain the failure to comment within the time allotted, (3) make the comments on the rating, (4) explain the actual or prospective effect of the rating on the contractor's business prospects and on its employees, and (5) request that the CO favorably revise the rating. (The contractor may want to ask for help in writing a good letter. It should reflect well on the contractor's intelligence.)

The letter should not be accusatory or say anything about "bad faith" on the part of the agency. It should not blame anyone for anything. Treat the problem as a misunderstanding. Don't make threats. Don't give anyone any reason to be defensive. Politely ask for a response within 30 days. Thank the CO in advance for considering your request.

The letter to the CO should show that copies have been sent, USPS certified mail, return receipt requested, to:

  • the agency small business specialist,
  • the agency SBA procurement center representative,
  • the chief of the agency contracting office,
  • the head of the agency contracting activity,
  • the agency head,
  • the contractor's senators,
  • the contractor's House representative,
  • the contractor's attorney, and
  • any industry association to which the contractor belongs.

When sending copies of the letter to the senators and House representative, do so under a cover letter asking for their assistance in persuading the agency to consider its comments on the CPARS rating.

The idea should be to make the CO wonder if its worth the prospective trouble of refusing to revise the rating.

If what I have suggested doesn't work, then the contractor can try submitting a claim. It will need a lawyer. But that probably won't work either.

Thank you, Sir.  Very good suggestions as always!  I feel good about this since this was partially my advice as well.  The contractor did get help and did write a nice letter to the CO explaining all the circumstances.  They did not copy the suggested others - which would have probably helped as you suggest, Vern.   The CO responded with one sentence saying "We have no control over the CPAR system once its finalized, so your request is denied. "  This is a typical response for this agency, which is basically a non-response.  This is why I was asking in the first place who we may think has the authority to pull the final CPAR if we escalate.

Before your very kind suggestion above, I was already thinking that SBA and agency SB advocate should be involved.  @joel hoffman's incredulity is justified.  Yes this was a Broad Agency Announcement, yes this is a first-time contractor and yes, the agency thought a complex CPFF would be the best idea for a contractor that has never done this type of contracting before.    The employee issue was that the employee was a Project Manager and received 2 notifications that the last CPAR was ready.  The Project Manager had no idea what CPAR was or why he was being told they were ready for comment and then decided to delete all the emails before leaving the company.    The contractor recovered his deleted emails and found that the agency did in fact provide a notification to the Project Manager (who was never designated as the POC for CPARs).  

I think it is probably time to go "claim" and get full legal assault since the contractor is already losing work based on the Selecting officials looking at this rating.  Thank you all as always for a great discussion!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tzarina, I ran into a similar situation a few years back.  In that situation, the contractor POC for CPARS left the contractor, and the contractor sent an e-mail to the CO informing her of this and requesting another individual be substituted as the new POC.  The CO never responded and sometime later sent the draft CPARS to the old employee's e-mail address resulting in the contractor never having a chance to comment on it.  The contrafctor later filed a claim on another matter regarding the same contract.  That claim went to mediation before an appeals board where it was settled.  Although the CPARS issue was not part of the claim, it was part of the settlement and the government was able to let the contractor make comments on the CPARS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...