Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

All I received a CPARS that was not so favorable. I schedule a meeting with the contracting officer and discussed and most of the rating areas we were able to get worked out. The one area for which we couldn't reach agreement was schedule. During the rating period there were quality issues identified during production related to parts received from a supplier during the last three months of the contract. We identified the problem with the part and notified the government right away that there was an issue and that we were performing root cause analysis and finding a work around but that this issue would delay deliveries. We found an agreeable work around and submitted a revised schedule which basically pushed everything out 30 days. We asked for and received a schedule modification in accordance with the plan and offered/paid consideration which was accepted by the government.

At CPARS my company received a "marginal" rating on schedule because of this. My argument is that we delivered to the modified schedule. Since the contract was modified there were officially no late deliveries. The government contends that for legal purposes the deliveries were on time but the modification to contract doesn't erase our late deliveries from their memories which allows them to rate accordingly for CPARS. I responded then that there is very little incentive for a contractor to pay consideration for date changes if they still get dings on past performance.

Additionally, the government PM argued that the marginal rating was given because the issue effected all of the contracts remaining deliveries. I informed that given the number of remaining months to contract, and our maximum production capacity, there was no way for us to recover without impacting the balance of the schedule. For example. Say the contract was for 85 units per month and our maximum capacity was 100 with no fails or reworks, it would be impossible for us to get back on schedule with only 3 months remaining on the contract. Even if everything went perfectly, the best we could do is shave two weeks off the final delivery month. The entire argument seems illogical to me.

The CPARS has been revised but this schedule ding remains. It just doesn't seem right to me. Is there any reference on schedule ratings when there have been delivery date changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my admittedly limited experience, even if you are demonstrably correct, it has not been possible to persuade the Government to change a past performance rating, even after review at a level above the Contracting Officer. They just will not admit when they are wrong. Others may have a different experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are being biased in favor of your company. Look at it from your customer's perspective. Your customer wanted widgets by some date and you weren't able to deliver by the time you said you would because of delays in the subcontractors you choose. Delays by subcontractors are not an excusable delay, regardless if you provided the Government with timely notification.

Technically, you were in default of the contract and your customer could have terminated your contract for cause. Instead, they let you skate by and gave you a no cost extension, which they were under NO obligation to do. If I were the Contracting Officer, I would have demanded consideration in lieu of termination for your company's failure to deliver timely. You should be thankful that they provided you with that extension at no cost.

It is apparent that providing you with that extension for nothing in return, and not getting their widgets timely, left your customer with a bad taste in their mouth. CPARS is the perfect venue to report that kind of information. My recommendation would be to thank your customer for its business, apologize for the inconvenience of the late delivery, gracefully ask that they still consider you for future business, and establish a contingency plan for what you can do if your subcontractors are not able to deliver next time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were performance problems. Your performance rating reflects this. The contract modification does not mean the performance problem did not occur.

For your reference, the Tables in FAR 42.1503 contain the rating standards and what is required to justify each rating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand the comments about default or receiving a no cost modification. We notified the customer of a quality problem prior to delinquency. It was either that, or provide a bad product. We offered and paid consideration for the modification which changed the delivery dates. Also FAR 42.1503 does give that information. However, please review the attached which indicates a rating of marginal should be for (1) Some late deliveries & (2) No corrective actions. If the delivery date was changed and we performed to that changed date, there was "no late deliveries", http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/best_practice_re_past_perf .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your point. That's why, as a contracting officer, I sometimes don't do a modification to extend the delivery dates -- rather, I sometimes leave the contractor in a late status so I can record it in CPARS. Doing a modification and re-establishing a delivery date makes the contractor on time again. And sometimes, that's fine.

But our automated systems are forcing me to change my practice -- my automated systems and my colleagues in the paying office are trying to force me to do modifications to make the contractor on-time, saying they cannot make payment otherwise. They're wrong, of course, but they seemingly always win. So I think the next time, I'll record a satisfactory in CPARS but add a note saying simply that the Government was forced to issue a modification to extend the delivery date solely because of the contractor's inability to perform as originally promised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SI, you did not say how your contract is priced, however, I assume it was fixed price. If you look at the Default clause, 52.249-8, you will notice that the government can terminate a contract for default if the contractor is not making satisfactory progress to deliver on time. Thus, when you notified the government that you would not be able to deliver on time, you told the government you were in default.

Also, why didn't you know of the problem earlier? Were you exercising proper production surveillance over your sub so that you would be aware of problems that could impact your delivery? I'm not sure that a rating of marginal was justified (and I am not saying it wasn't), but you definitely deserved a ding unless there is something you are not telling us such as the existence of defective or ambiguous specs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OMB citation you provided does not say “should be…&” as you assert. More accurately OMB says, These are suggested guidelines for assigning ratings on a contractor’s compliance with the contract performance, cost, and schedule goals as specified in the Statement of Work. The guidelines for Business Relations are meant to be separate ratings for the areas mentioned. All the areas do not need to fit the rating to give the rating for the category. Ensure that this assessment is consistent with any other Agency assessments (i.e., award fee assessments).” (Bold added by me.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument seems to be that you should not get a marginal rating because you delivered IAW the revised schedule. Take the following situation: Your due date is 1 June XX. On 1 May XX you notify the contracting officer you will not be able make the due date and offer $1,000 as consideration for extending the contract for two months. Rather than terminate for default, the contracting officer accepts the offer and revises the delivery schedule accordingly. This happens twice more, until you finally deliver on 1 November (30 days before 1 December, the date required by the latest delivery schedule). Using your logic, are you saying you should receive an exceptional rating because you are now significantly early?

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