Jump to content

Can agency withdraw finalized CPAR?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

The CO responded with one sentence saying "We have no control over the CPAR system once its finalized, so your request is denied. "

No doubt system management and its bureaucracy has changed over the years but as one who was the branch chief at USACE of the Portland District for CPARS before it went government wide while the response may be typical I believe I can say it is not factually correct.

I hope you find a solution that is fair to the contractor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Retreadfed said:

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.

This is very good to know.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2023 at 8:48 AM, joel hoffman said:

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

On 3/15/2023 at 8:48 AM, joel hoffman said:

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

17 hours ago, Tzarina of Compliance said:

  @joel hoffman's incredulity is justified.

Should this type of contractor almost always be given a FFP LOE instead of a CPFF?  I’m worried about audits now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CO here, though I may be more reasonable than who you are dealing with. A CPARS assessment can be "reopened" or an addendum added. The CO/agency cannot do it but they can request it from the CPARS help desk. The CO can modify the ratings as previously assigned or leave as-is and allow the contractor to take its 60 days to review and provide comment to go through the non-concur process. That said, knowing the company is trying to take issue with the assessment, there's not a lot of incentive for the govt to reopen it as then the agency would have to "deal" with the non-concurrence process whereas at current, it's a closed case. 

To be blunt, the "woe is me, we didn't know" angle can get tiring as well. I know dealing with govt acquisitions is complicated and govt POCs are not always/often helpful, but for me, I do expect some level of effort from the industry partner. You said the PM "was never designated as the POC" and I assume by that you mean your client hadn't specifically given that person's name. By virtue of the PM receiving notifications, it means he was put into the system as the Contractor Rep. He would have received an email at the time he was put into the system with information about the award, agency POCs, and how to register his account for access. (This should occur right around the time of award of the contract if the agency is registering timely.) He would have also received an email when it went to the Assessing Official and another when it was sent to the Contractor for review and comment. Reminders are also sent. Negligence on his part does not make it the Government's issue to deal with. The Assessing Official can also see a log of when users have looked at the record. If the PM happened to look at the record, that will not bode well for your client as well. Over the years I've been told "we didn't get notifications" or "it went to the wrong person" yet I could see when they logged in to review it. Whoops! (I do not know if this information can be seen from the Contractor Rep view.)

Now onto my more reasonable approach, if a small business reached out and expressed clearly the five things that Mr. Edwards indicated in his post above, I'd be more willing to at least discuss the issue before deciding on whether or not to reopen. Not only would this likely be easier than any other action the firm might choose to take (claims and the like) but would be an olive branch for a small business contractor that is new to the Federal space and could really use the more accurate assessment as it'll be the only one in the system. **Note that none of the above would excuse the govt for putting in patently false information in the assessment. It is not uncommon that whomever drafts the assessment doesn't fully understand the process. The Assessing Official may either a) not read what the Assessing Official Rep entered or b) not fully know the ins and outs of performance and therefore accepts what is written. Either of these scenarios can lead to assessments that do not jive with reality. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to follow-up and for your information, I found one of the notification emails in my inbox and wanted to send so you could see what the PM would have received (in case this wasn't one that was recovered). From my point of view, it's hard to swallow that the PM didn't know what it was or why he was receiving it. I do hope your client is able to work out an amenable solution and this is a great lesson learned - if a contract appears to be eligible for an assessment IAW FAR 42.15, they should be sure to ask about it and provide the correct POCs (and keep them updated if personnel change!!).

 

Quote

SUBJECT:  Final evaluation for Contract NUMBER

Dear CONTRACTOR REP:

Good performance by Federal contractors is essential. The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires all Federal agencies to collect past performance information on contracts. CPARS has been implemented to comply with this regulation and to ensure that source selection officials have a detailed evaluation of contractors' past performance. We have performed an evaluation of your company's work on contract NUMBER for the period MM/DD/YYYY through MM/DD/YYYY.

To access this evaluation:

* Go to https://www.cpars.gov

* Click on 'Log In' and log in. If you forgot your Password, use the 'Forgot/Reset Password' function. Contractor users are encouraged to obtain and use a PKI certificate.

* From the Home screen click on the 'To-Do List'

* Click on the Contract Number

* Review the evaluation, provide comments and indicate your concurrence/non-concurrence with the Government's review (see below for time constraints)

* Comments should focus on objective facts in the Government's narrative as well as providing your views on the causes and ramifications of the assessed performance

* Click the 'Validate and Send to the Assessing Official' button when finished

You have 14 calendar days following the Assessing Official signature date (MM/DD/YYYY) to submit comments before the evaluation is made available in the View Performance Records section of CPARS. You have a total of 60 calendar days (MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM) to submit comments. Any comments that you submit will be updated accordingly.

PLEASE NOTE:

If you do not sign and return the evaluation within 60 calendar days the evaluation will be returned to the Assessing Official, you will no longer be able to provide comments and the evaluation will be annotated as follows: 'The report was delivered/received by the contractor on MM/DD/YYYY. The contractor neither signed nor offered comment in response to this evaluation.' Partially completed comments that were not signed and returned to the Government within 60 calendar days will be removed from the evaluation.

The following guidelines apply concerning your use of CPARS:

a. If for some reason you are unable to view and/or submit the evaluation through the automated system, contact the Focal Point for instructions. The Focal Point for this contract is FOCAL POINT, who can be reached at XXX-XXX-XXXX.

b. If you have questions about the evaluation, FAR 42.15 includes a rebuttal process. If you desire a meeting to discuss the evaluation, a meeting may be requested, in writing, no later than seven days following your receipt of this notification. If deemed appropriate, a meeting (in-person or over the telephone) may be held during your 60-day review period.

c. Protect the evaluation as 'source selection information'. Strictly control access to the evaluation within your organization. Ensure it is never released to persons or entities outside of your control, this includes using the evaluation for advertising, promotional material, pre-award surveys, production readiness reviews, or other similar purposes.

d. A copy of this evaluation will be available through the automated system once it is completed by the Government. You will receive an automated email notification at the time of completion.

The CPARS process is designed to fairly evaluate your performance under this specific contract. The guidelines used to prepare this evaluation are available at the website provided above. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at XXX-XXX-XXXX or EMAIL.

Sincerely,

ASSESSING OFFICIAL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Contracting_in_Wonderland said:

CO here, though I may be more reasonable than who you are dealing with. A CPARS assessment can be "reopened" or an addendum added. The CO/agency cannot do it but they can request it from the CPARS help desk. The CO can modify the ratings as previously assigned or leave as-is and allow the contractor to take its 60 days to review and provide comment to go through the non-concur process. That said, knowing the company is trying to take issue with the assessment, there's not a lot of incentive for the govt to reopen it as then the agency would have to "deal" with the non-concurrence process whereas at current, it's a closed case. 

To be blunt, the "woe is me, we didn't know" angle can get tiring as well. I know dealing with govt acquisitions is complicated and govt POCs are not always/often helpful, but for me, I do expect some level of effort from the industry partner. You said the PM "was never designated as the POC" and I assume by that you mean your client hadn't specifically given that person's name. By virtue of the PM receiving notifications, it means he was put into the system as the Contractor Rep. He would have received an email at the time he was put into the system with information about the award, agency POCs, and how to register his account for access. (This should occur right around the time of award of the contract if the agency is registering timely.) He would have also received an email when it went to the Assessing Official and another when it was sent to the Contractor for review and comment. Reminders are also sent. Negligence on his part does not make it the Government's issue to deal with. The Assessing Official can also see a log of when users have looked at the record. If the PM happened to look at the record, that will not bode well for your client as well. Over the years I've been told "we didn't get notifications" or "it went to the wrong person" yet I could see when they logged in to review it. Whoops! (I do not know if this information can be seen from the Contractor Rep view.)

Now onto my more reasonable approach, if a small business reached out and expressed clearly the five things that Mr. Edwards indicated in his post above, I'd be more willing to at least discuss the issue before deciding on whether or not to reopen. Not only would this likely be easier than any other action the firm might choose to take (claims and the like) but would be an olive branch for a small business contractor that is new to the Federal space and could really use the more accurate assessment as it'll be the only one in the system. **Note that none of the above would excuse the govt for putting in patently false information in the assessment. It is not uncommon that whomever drafts the assessment doesn't fully understand the process. The Assessing Official may either a) not read what the Assessing Official Rep entered or b) not fully know the ins and outs of performance and therefore accepts what is written. Either of these scenarios can lead to assessments that do not jive with reality. 

 

Many many thanks!  All great points.  The Project Manager did not receive a notification from the system, it was an email from the COR to say that an assessment was prepared and would be available in the CPAR system, which the PM ignored.  It is unclear where the system notification went, the contractor could not find it and they looked through their CEO's emails as well as any SAM POCs.    I am totally on board with "ignorance of the law is not an excuse", but in this situation, the contarctor did try to explain the reasons to the CO and got nowhere, becuase CO does not think they can reopen it alone - which I think you confirm is true.    This is super helpful infor that a CO would have to go through the helpdesk, which is what I was trying to assertain.    Thank you very much.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tzarina of Compliance Definitely sounds like a series of unfortunate events and I wish your client the best. Other commenters have already suggested some other avenues if not making headway with the CO and the request to reopen via the help desk. And now I am so curious who was on the other end of the CPARS Contractor Rep emails. The plot thickens! Best of luck. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Contracting_in_Wonderland said:

Just to follow-up and for your information, I found one of the notification emails in my inbox and wanted to send so you could see what the PM would have received (in case this wasn't one that was recovered). From my point of view, it's hard to swallow that the PM didn't know what it was or why he was receiving it. I do hope your client is able to work out an amenable solution and this is a great lesson learned - if a contract appears to be eligible for an assessment IAW FAR 42.15, they should be sure to ask about it and provide the correct POCs (and keep them updated if personnel change!!).

 

 

Great posts - very informative and may be helpful to others in the future - well done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2023 at 1:35 PM, Tzarina of Compliance said:

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.

From my perspective, this agency should have been more proactive with a new contractor but the actions of the PM are somewhat telling and intriguing. The PM may or may not have had experience with government contracts.

We also don’t know what the lines of communication were.

The statement that the PM was not the point of contact for CPARS is also interesting but no need to expand on that here. 

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...