In our last blog post we discussed the basics of Past Performance evaluations; generally, what past performance evaluations are and when they are required. Today we dive a bit deeper into past performance evaluations to offer some advice and observations on how to assess the government’s past performance evaluation of your performance and what to do in the event you disagree with the government’s past performance evaluation on your contract.
Past performance evaluations are made via the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). CPARS ratings are annual performance reviews written by the Government to report on whether you are meeting contractual requirements. The CPARS evaluation includes an assessment of the following performance areas:
- Technical
- Cost Control
- Schedule/timeliness
- Management or business relations
- Small Business Subcontracting
- Regulatory Compliance
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) requires the government to make detailed and objective evaluations about a contractor’s performance for each of the applicable performance areas. Part 42 of the FAR governs the “objectivity” of these evaluations by providing definitions for each of the adjectival ratings the government may assign in CPARS. Those ratings are:
|
Rating |
Definition |
Note |
| (a) Exceptional | Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. | To justify an “exceptional” rating, identify multiple significant events and state how they were of benefit to the government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an “exceptional” rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. |
| (b) Very Good | Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. | To justify a “very good” rating, identify a significant event and state how it was a benefit to the government. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified. |
| (c) Satisfactory | Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. | To justify a “satisfactory” rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than “satisfactory” solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order. |
| (d) Marginal | Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. | To justify “marginal” performance, identify a significant event in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the government. A “marginal” rating should be supported by referencing the management tool that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency report or letter). |
| (e) Unsatisfactory | Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. | To justify an “unsatisfactory” rating, identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the government. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating. An “unsatisfactory” rating should be supported by referencing the management tools used to notify the contractor of the contractual deficiencies (e.g., management, quality, safety, or environmental deficiency reports, or letters). |
In order to assign any of the adjectival ratings above, the government’s evaluation must meet the definition for that rating. For example, let’s assume for Schedule/Timeliness, the government assigned a “Marginal” rating. In the evaluation comments, the Government noted that the contractor had received two (2) Corrective Action Reports (“CARs”) and responded effectively to those CARs. Notice, within the definition for “marginal,” a “contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.” If the government found the proposed actions to be “effective”, then an assignment of “marginal” may not be appropriate.
If you determine that the government’s stated rationale for assignment of a particular rating does not meet the definition described above, you do have the opportunity to “correct the record”. Contractors are afforded the opportunity to respond to each of the evaluated areas with written comments, but any such comments must be submitted within fourteen (14) days of notice of the government’s evaluation. In other words, you need to act quickly in responding to any adverse evaluations. If you would like to receive advice or a review by GCP of agency Past Performance ratings, or have questions about Past Performance ratings, please contact us.
Recent Comments