Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

BUILDING STRONG ® Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System Changes to Contractor Performance Evaluations 1 Ian Mitchell, PE, LEED AP BD+C Chief,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "BUILDING STRONG ® Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System Changes to Contractor Performance Evaluations 1 Ian Mitchell, PE, LEED AP BD+C Chief,"— Presentation transcript:

1 BUILDING STRONG ® Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System Changes to Contractor Performance Evaluations 1 Ian Mitchell, PE, LEED AP BD+C Chief, Management Support Section & Louisville District A-E Responsibility Coordinator 29 Jan 15

2 BUILDING STRONG ® What Has Changed? 2  In the past, CPARS, ACASS and CCASS contained differing contractor evaluation forms, rating elements, and workflow processes.  The CPARS, ACASS and CCASS modules have been merged into a single application developed by the Naval Sea Logistics Center Portsmouth under the CPARS name.  The merge includes the transition to common evaluation entry fields with a common set of rating elements in addition to a transition to a common workflow process.

3 BUILDING STRONG ® Why do we evaluate performance? 3 Regulatory Requirements FAR  Past Performance Evaluations Prepared: ► At Least Annually ► At Time Work Under Contract or Order is Completed ► Past Performance Information Shall be Entered Into CPARS FAR  Evaluation Factors (Technical, Cost Control, Schedule, Management, Small Business Subcontracting, other) FAR  Past Performance Shall be Evaluated in all Source Selections for Negotiated Competitive Acquisitions Expected to Exceed Simplified Acquisition Threshold

4 BUILDING STRONG ® Why Change to CPARS?  Issues discovered: ► skepticism about the reliability of the information ► a lack of central oversight and management  GAO recommendation: standardize evaluation factors and rating scales government-wide. 4  Implements one of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations in audit GAO “Federal Contractors: Better Performance Information Needed to Support Agency Contract Award Decisions” dated April 23, 2009.

5 BUILDING STRONG ® The End Result 5  A single streamlined and optimized system  Merging of CPARS and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) into the Integrated Award Environment

6 BUILDING STRONG ® When will CPARS use begin?  Louisville District began entering CPARS evaluations for A-E Contracts into the system starting in mid January 2015 and construction began in late  The CPARS process for both construction and engineering is a work in progress. 6

7 BUILDING STRONG ® Changes  The DD2631 (ACASS) and the DD2626 (CCASS) are no longer being used.  The PDF version of the evaluation is no longer being used.  The interface to the Resident Management System (RMS) for construction and A-E performance has been removed.  Data elements have been revised; fields for Project Title and Complexity have been added. 7

8 BUILDING STRONG ® Changes – Cont.  The terms “Rating Official” and “Evaluating Official” have been changed to “Reviewing Official.”  The Reviewing Official will be optional for Architect-Engineer and Construction evaluations. A Reviewing Official will only be required in the event that the Contractor Representative does not concur with the evaluation.  Completed Architect & Engineering and Construction evaluations will no longer overwrite previously completed evaluations.  All evaluations, including Architect-Engineer and Construction, will be archived from CPARS three years following contract completion.  Retentions in PPIRS will remain the same at six years from the contract completion date. 8

9 BUILDING STRONG ® What will be evaluated  All Architect-Engineer (A-E) contracts that are over $30,000 or terminated for default will receive a final performance evaluation.  All A-E contracts that are over $30,000 with a period of performance over one year will receive interim performance evaluations annually.  All A-E contracts that include preparation of construction documents and are over $30,000 will receive an addendum performance evaluation at the conclusion of construction. ► This includes contracts with and without construction phase services 9

10 BUILDING STRONG ® Elements of CPARS Evaluation  Rating Elements ► Quality ► Schedule ► Cost Control ► Management ► Utilization of Small Business ► Regulatory Compliance ► Other Evaluation Areas (three total)  Comments will be made on each area  An overall rating will be given in the “Other” Section  Individual disciplines will be evaluated in the comments section for “Other” 10

11 BUILDING STRONG ® LRL CPARS Entry Form 11  Helps with consistency between numerous Government Project Engineers  Based on guidance included in ECB * *

12 BUILDING STRONG ® Input into CPARS  Typical Project and Company Information  Evaluation Type: Interim, Final or Addendum  Total Dollar Value  Current Contract Dollar Value  Location of Work  Complexity: High, Medium or Low  Contract Effort Description  Key Subcontractors and Effort Performed 12

13 BUILDING STRONG ® Quality  Contractor’s management of the quality control program and Quality of the work itself ► Did the AE follow their Quality Management Plan? ► Did the AE perform appropriate site investigations? ► Were deliverables accurate and coordinated? ► Were the deliverables clear and sufficiently detailed? ► Did the AEs provide a functional and useable product? ► Did the AE provide an aesthetically designed facility? ► Did the AE provide appropriate and timely responses? ► Was the design prepared in accordance with the present sustainability and environmental requirements? ► Did the AE develop and implement any innovative approaches? ► Was the product biddable with a minimum number of amendments? ► Were all design products submitted in the appropriate format? 13

14 BUILDING STRONG ® Schedule  Assess the timeliness of the Contractor against the required completion date of the contract, milestones, delivery schedules, and administrative requirements ► Did the AE adhere to the schedule within their contract/task order? ► Were all deliverables submitted as required per the schedule? ► If the AE was not able to adhere to their schedule, did they develop a corrective action plan and follow this plan? 14

15 BUILDING STRONG ® Cost Control  Typically used to evaluate Cost Contracts. For AE contracts, the purpose of this element will be to evaluate the AE’s cost estimating performance. If there was no cost estimating in the AE’s scope, then this area shall be N/A. Factors to consider: ► If a design, was the cost within the cost limitations specified in the contract/task order? ► For other products such as studies, was meaningful cost data provided to support the results of the product? ► Were the submitted estimates performed with sufficient detail and accuracy? ► If a Value Engineering study was performed, was AE cooperative in implementing approved recommendations? ► FAR Design within funding limitations. 15

16 BUILDING STRONG ® Management of Key Personnel  Should reflect the Contractor’s internal and external day- to-day business operations as they relate to meeting contract requirements. Factors to consider: ► Did the AE’s project manager provide the appropriate leadership? ► Did the AE exhibit reasonable and cooperative behavior? ► Did the AE manage their consultants? ► Did the key personnel identified to participate remain involved? 16

17 BUILDING STRONG ® Utilization of Small Business  This category may be rated N/A for small business contracts. This area must be rated for all contracts and task orders that contain a small business subcontracting plan. Assess compliance with all terms and conditions in the contract relating to Small Business participation. ► Compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) , Utilization of Small Business ► Compliance with FAR , Small Business Subcontracting Plan ► Contractor’s good faith effort(s) to meet contract goals and requirements ► eSRS (Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System) 17

18 BUILDING STRONG ® Regulatory Compliance  Architect-Engineer evaluations shall be N/A unless a specific component of design or engineering services is governed by an environmental regulation is important enough to be broken out from the quality rating. 18

19 BUILDING STRONG ® Other 19  Overall Rating  Discipline Specific Ratings  Will be in comments section of CPARS under “Other”  Not Per the ECB for A-E Contracts

20 BUILDING STRONG ® Recommendation  Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to perform in accordance with this contract or order’s most significant requirements, I Recommend or I Do Not Recommend them for similar requirements in the future 20

21 BUILDING STRONG ® Concerns with CPARS  No overall rating Built-in  Cost growth is not easily attained ► Total Dollar Value Includes Un-awarded Options ► Current Dollar Value Includes awarded options and mods  Several fields do not align with the areas important to the district  No requirement for A-E responsibility data ► Construction Cost Growth ► Damages to the Government 21

22 BUILDING STRONG ® CPARS Roles 22 Focal Point/Alternate Focal Point (FP/AFP): Registers Contracts, Assigns Users, Provides Support Assessing Official Rep (AOR): Assists Assessing Official in Preparing Evaluation Assessing Official (AO): Sends Evaluation to Contractor Rep; Reviews Contractor Comments Contractor Rep (CR): Provides Comments Reviewing Official (RO): Resolves Disputes https://www.cpars.gov

23 BUILDING STRONG ® CPARS Timeline 23 Within 30 Days of Contract Award FP/AFP, AOR, or AO Registers Basic Contract Information FP/AFP, AOR, or AO Registers Basic Contract Information Days After Contract Award Evaluation Appears on AOR/AO To Do List Days After Contract Award AOR/AO Enters Evaluation Ratings & Narratives – 485 Days After Contract Award AO Sends Evaluation to CR 4 4 https://www.cpars.gov

24 BUILDING STRONG ® CPARS Timeline 24 Days 1 – 14 After Eval Sent to CR CR May Send Comments If CR Sends Comments and AO/RO Closes, Eval Sent to PPIRS 5 5 Day 15 After Eval Sent to CR Eval Available in PPIRS: - With or Without CR Comments - Whether or Not It Has Been Closed by AO/RO Eval Available in PPIRS: - With or Without CR Comments - Whether or Not It Has Been Closed by AO/RO Note: Eval Marked as “Pending” if Not Closed 6 6 https://www.cpars.gov

25 BUILDING STRONG ® CPARS Timeline 25 Days 15 – 60 After Eval Sent to CR CR May Send Comments if None Previously Provided If CR Sends Comments, PPIRS Updated to Reflect CR Comments; “Pending” Marking Removed When AO/RO Closes Eval 7 7 Day 61 After Eval Sent to CR Eval Returned to AO; CR Locked Out of Eval & May No Longer Send Comments 8 8 https://www.cpars.gov

26 BUILDING STRONG ® CPARS Timeline 26 Day 61 After Eval Sent to CR – Day 120 After End of Period of Performance 9 9 AO Must Either: - Close Eval (Eval Updated in PPIRS) - Modify & Close Eval (Eval Updated in PPIRS) - Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as “Pending”) - Modify & Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as “Pending”) AO Must Either: - Close Eval (Eval Updated in PPIRS) - Modify & Close Eval (Eval Updated in PPIRS) - Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as “Pending”) - Modify & Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as “Pending”) Note: “Pending” Marking Removed When Eval Closed CR CONCURRED AO Must Either: - Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as “Pending”) - Modify & Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as “Pending”) AO Must Either: - Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as “Pending”) - Modify & Send Eval to RO (Eval Updated in PPIRS as “Pending”) CR DID NOT CONCUR https://www.cpars.gov

27 BUILDING STRONG ® CPARS Timeline 27 Prior to Day 121 After End of Period of Performance RO Provides Comments & Closes Eval; Eval Updated in PPIRS with “Pending” Marking Removed 10 The entire CPARS evaluation process must be completed within 120 days of the end of the period of performance! https://www.cpars.gov

28 BUILDING STRONG ® For More Information 28 www. cpars.gov

29 BUILDING STRONG ® Questions? 29


Download ppt "BUILDING STRONG ® Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System Changes to Contractor Performance Evaluations 1 Ian Mitchell, PE, LEED AP BD+C Chief,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google