[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46783-46792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18461]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 8, 12, 15, 17, 42, and 49
[FAC 2005-69; FAR Case 2012-009; Item III; Docket 2012-0009, Sequence
1]
RIN 9000-AM09
Federal Acquisition Regulation; Documenting Contractor
Performance
AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration
(GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a final rule amending the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to provide Governmentwide
standardized past performance evaluation factors and performance rating
categories and require that past performance information be entered
into the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS),
the single Governmentwide past performance reporting system.
DATES: Effective: September 3, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Curtis E. Glover, Sr., Procurement
Analyst, at 202-501-1448, for clarification of content. For information
pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-69, FAR Case 2012-
009.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register at 76 FR 37704 on June 28, 2011, under FAR Case 2009-042, to
implement recommendations from Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Report GAO-09-374, entitled ``Better Performance Information Needed to
Support Agency Contract Award Decisions,'' and Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) memorandum entitled ``Improving the Use of
Contractor Performance Information'' (dated July 29, 2009). Two
amendments to the proposed rule were published in the Federal Register
at 76 FR 48776 on August 9, 2011, and at 76 FR 50714 on August 16,
2011. Twenty three respondents submitted comments on the proposed rule.
A second proposed rule that was published in the Federal Register at 77
FR 54864 on September 6, 2012, addressed all comments received in
response to the first proposed rule and, in addition, proposed to
implement paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) of section 806 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81). The
second proposed rule further requested comments on the merits of
modifying the FAR requirements governing the appeal process to evaluate
if this would improve or weaken the effectiveness of past performance
policies and associated principles of impartiality and accountability.
Seventeen respondents submitted comments on the second proposed rule.
This rule also incorporates agency management accountability
requirements from section 853 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). In the interim, the
Governmentwide Guidance for the Contractor Performance Assessment
Reporting System (CPARS) was released in November 2012 and is available
at http://www.cpars.gov/cparsfiles/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf.
II. Discussion and Analysis
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition
Regulations Council (the Councils) reviewed the comments in the
development of the final rule. A discussion of the comments and the
changes made to the rule as a result of those comments are provided as
follows:
[[Page 46784]]
A. Summary of Significant Changes
FAR 42.1503(b)(4) is revised by adding two tables:
[cir] Table 42-1--Evaluation Ratings Definitions; and
[cir] Table 42-2--Evaluation Ratings Definitions (for the Small
Business Subcontracting Evaluation Factor when the FAR clause at
52.218-9 is used).
FAR subpart 42.15 is reorganized for clarity and consistency
of subject matter.
FAR 42.1502, Policy, is revised to clarify when past
performance evaluations are required for contracts and orders.
The procedures and responsibilities for contributing to and
conducting past performance evaluations are addressed and clarified at
FAR 42.1503, Procedures. This section also includes a new requirement
for past performance reports to include a clear, non-technical
description of the principal purpose of the contract or order.
In accordance with statutory direction, FAR 42.1503(c)
includes the requirement to enter the award-fee performance adjectival
rating and incentive-fee contract performance evaluation into CPARS
when applicable.
Agencies are required, at FAR 42.1503(e), to conduct frequent
evaluations of agency compliance with past performance evaluation
requirements so agencies can readily identify delinquent and deficient
past performance reports for quality control.
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. General
Comment: Three respondents expressed support for the intent of the
rule to standardize the past performance evaluation factors and rating
categories.
Response: Noted.
Comment: One respondent commented that, under FAR 17.207, language
should be added to paragraph (c)(6), or a new paragraph (c)(7) should
be added, to ensure that past performance evaluations are done on all
recently completed task/delivery orders so that the contracting officer
considering exercising an option had the most recent performance
information.
Response: The text at FAR 17.207(c)(6) has been revised, and a new
(c)(7) has been added to address the respondent's concern.
Comment: One respondent commented that, in FAR 42.1503(b)(2)(vi),
``defective cost and pricing data'' should be changed to ``defective
cost or pricing data''.
Response: Agreed.
Comments: Three respondents commented that the examples listed for
a sixth evaluation factor should be deleted. It was noted that the FAR
43.1503(b)(2)(vi) examples should be deleted because they are
inflammatory negative examples, they duplicated Federal Awardee
Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and they were
examples of performance findings rather than other areas of evaluation.
Response: The ``other'' evaluation factor was added to capture
events that may have a bearing on contractor performance that do not
fit well within any of the other five categories. The examples listed
are just some of the factors that the contracting officer may consider,
and they in no way preclude the inclusion of positive information
regarding the contractor's performance. Evaluations include negative
and positive information about the contractor's performance to inform
the contractor of the Government's concerns so improvements can be made
to achieve the intended results under the contract. The ``Other''
evaluation factor allows flexibility for contracting officers to
consider factors unique to each contract.
Comment: One respondent commented that the contractor should be
allowed to evaluate Government input.
Response: Contractors are given an opportunity to provide rebuttal
statements in response to agency evaluations. The final decision is
solely the agency's discretion.
Comment: One respondent commented that the proposed FAR case should
be withdrawn and reconsidered by the FAR Council.
Response: It is in the Government's interest to proceed with the
case.
Comments: Two respondents commented that the three- to six-year
retention period for past performance information is not long enough.
One respondent commented that, in FAR 42.1503(g), the language
``Agencies shall use the past performance information in PPIRS that is
within three years (six for construction . . .)'' should be changed to
``Agencies shall use the past performance information in PPIRS that
reflects performance within the last three years (six for
construction)''.
Response: The respondents' comments are noted. However, the current
retention periods in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System
(PPIRS) are appropriate.
Comment: One respondent commented that cost control can be harmful
to some businesses.
Response: The requirement for cost control is not new to contractor
performance information; it is included in FAR 42.1501 and listed as an
example to consider when reviewing relevant information. Cost control
is not the only factor that is considered relevant past performance
information, but it is relevant information for source selection
officials to consider especially under cost contracts. Other factors
such as technical, schedule/timeliness, and management or business
relations are some of the relevant considerations reported in past
performance evaluations, and that also will be used to evaluate a
contractor's overall performance.
Comment: One respondent commented on establishing uniform
definitions for evaluation factors.
Response: By adding the CPARS rating factors, uniform definitions
are established and standardized for evaluation ratings. However, there
is flexibility to tailor evaluation ratings to the contract type, size,
content, and complexity of the contractual requirements.
Comment: One respondent commented on linking past performance in
FAR 42.1503(d) to future responsibility determinations in FAR subpart
9.1 and the impact of a contractor with more than one contract to have
a negative performance evaluation on one contract take precedence over
good or excellent performance on many other contracts in future
responsibility determinations.
Response: Contracting officers are required to use sound judgment
in determining the weight and relevance of all information in relation
to the present acquisition. FAR 15.305(a)(1)(i) on use of past
performance information in source selection states that the comparative
assessment of past performance is separate from the responsibility
determination required under FAR subpart 9.1.
Comment: The respondent's company was unfairly evaluated in
multiple 100 percent 8(a) set-aside solicitations because an agency
procurement office blocked the contracting officer technical
representatives from putting their past performance evaluations in the
CPARS and PPIRS, according to the respondent.
Response: This comment is outside the scope of this case. However,
the respondent should contact the agency small business office or the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) Procurement Center
Representatives (PCR) and Commercial Market
[[Page 46785]]
Representatives (CMR) for assistance. SBA's PCRs and CMRs play an
important role in helping ensure that small businesses gain access to
contracting and subcontracting opportunities.
Comment: One respondent commented that an important feature of the
system is the ability of the seller to be able to post a response to
all (particularly negative) reviews, as well as the buyer being able to
revise an evaluation.
Response: FAR 42.1503(d) does allow contractors to submit comments,
rebutting statements, or additional information. If there is a
disagreement between the parties, the contractor can request a review
of the evaluation at a level above the contracting officer. The
ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation is a decision of the
contracting agency.
Comments: Two respondents applauded the Councils for clearly
identifying the contracting officer as the ultimate person responsible
for performing past performance evaluations where agency procedures do
not specify a responsible representative.
Response: Noted.
Comment: One respondent expressed appreciation for the standardized
evaluation ratings; however, the respondent felt that, while
standardization may mitigate some evaluation inconsistencies, the
rating inconsistencies would likely persist given the subjective nature
of the system.
Response: The objective of the rule is to standardize the past
performance evaluation rating definitions. Any specific individual
evaluation should be addressed with the agency contracting officer
responsible for that past performance rating.
Comment: One respondent commented that the FAR Council should
consider requiring that regularly scheduled past performance evaluation
discussions be considered as part of the partnering process that the
agencies promote.
Response: The comment reflects issues related to administration and
not policy.
Comment: One respondent commented that the FAR Council should
consider mandating that Federal agencies regularly assess the
evaluations given by their regional offices. The respondent was
concerned because of inconsistent evaluations among the regional
offices within an agency, such as different parameters for the top
rating.
Response: Agencies are encouraged to conduct contract management
reviews or procurement management reviews that entail reviewing
contract administration functions performed under the contract, such as
monitoring whether or not evaluations are timely, complete, and include
quality and useful information. See FAR 42.1501(b).
Comments: Two respondents commented that many agencies require past
performance questionnaires, which require much of the same information
as the past performance evaluation. The respondents stated that these
processes needed to be better integrated and streamlined to save time
and money for both the Government and contractors.
Response: FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) provides offerors an opportunity to
identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local
government and private) for efforts similar to the Government
requirement. In this fashion, an offeror may convey relevant
performance information of which the Government may be unaware.
Comments: Several respondents commented on Construction Contractor
Appraisal Support System (CCASS). One respondent commented that
contracting officers should be required to utilize and rely upon
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Another
respondent commented that individuals responsible for completing the
past performance information in CCASS were not required to address all
elements of the evaluation.
Response: CCASS includes assessments of a contractor's performance
and provides a record, both positive and negative, on completed
construction contract performance. All reports should be complete.
Questions about incomplete CCASS reports should be directed to the
contracting officer or https://www.cpars.gov.
Comments: Two respondents recommended that there should be
additional requirements for the timely completion and timely release of
past performance evaluations. One respondent suggested a FAR clause to
better bind the Government to completing evaluations on time. This
respondent also recommended the appointment of a past performance
ombudsman.
Response: Contracting officers are required to provide evaluations
to contractors as soon as practicable after completion of the
evaluation. This FAR change encourages agencies to monitor their timely
reporting of past performance information, so the respondent's concerns
should lessen over time. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP), since FY 2010, has issued policy memoranda to ensure agencies
are compliant with the past performance reporting requirements in FAR
subpart 42.15 (see OFPP Memo dated March 6, 2013, Improving the
Collection and Use of Information about Contractor Performance and
Integrity at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/improving-the-collection-and-use-of-information-about-contractor-performance-and-integrity.pdf; OFPP Memo dated January 21,
2011, Improving Contractor Past Performance Assessments: Summary of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy's Review, and Strategies for
Improvement at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/contract_perf/PastPerformanceMemo-21-Jan-2011.pdf; and the
OFPP memo date July 29, 2009, Improving the Use of Contractor
Performance Information at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/procurement/improving_use_of_contractor_perf_info.pdf.
2. Appeals Process
Comment: The FAR currently requires agencies to provide for review
of agency evaluations at a level above the contracting officer to
consider disagreements between the parties regarding the evaluation. In
accordance with the FAR Council's Retrospective Plan and Analysis of
Existing Rules, this requirement, at FAR 42.1503(b), was singled out in
the second proposed rule with a request for comments on whether
modifying the appeal process would improve or weaken the effectiveness
of past performance policies and associated principles of impartiality
and accountability. There were seven responses to this request; all
urged that the appeals process be retained.
The respondents considered that elimination of the appeals process
would reduce contractor competition, increase the likelihood of
disruptive and costly litigation, weaken the effectiveness of past
performance review procedures, and undermine confidence in the process.
One respondent noted that, even when the appeals process was not used,
it acted as an important due-process protection for contractors. The
availability of the appeals process, according to respondents, ensures
that individual Government rater bias or lack of understanding of the
complete program, not just contracting issues, can be brought out and
addressed.
None of the respondents was of the opinion that eliminating the
past performance evaluation appeals process would improve economy or
efficiency. One respondent cited the statistic that 30 percent of its
initial past performance
[[Page 46786]]
evaluations contained errors that, upon appeal, resulted in substantive
changes in the final performance ratings and/or narratives. Another
respondent stressed that the past performance appeals process benefits
not just contractors, but the Government, in that it ensures more
accurate information is available for source selection decisions.
Response: The process for appealing an initial past performance
evaluation remains in FAR 42.1503 to allow the contractor the ability
to comment on the evaluation and agencies the opportunity to consider
the contractor's rebuttal statement and material, and, if appropriate,
revise the evaluation to reflect any agreed upon changes. However, it
should be noted that the existence of an appeal need not delay making a
past performance evaluation available to source selection officials.
Comment: One respondent suggested changing the text at FAR
42.1503(d) from ``Agencies shall provide for review at a level above
the contracting officer to consider disagreements between the parties
regarding the evaluation,'' to ``Agencies shall provide for review at a
level above the individual who completed the evaluation in CPARS to
consider disagreements between the parties regarding the evaluation.''
Response: The FAR language explicitly refers to a level above the
contracting officer, which means within the contracting office. The
Councils consider it appropriate to retain the review function in the
contracting office.
Comments: Six respondents commented that they did not support the
elimination of the ``appeals process'' where agencies are required to
provide for review of agency evaluation at a level above the
contracting officer. A seventh respondent commented on the need for a
procedure to ensure impartiality and hold agencies accountable for
their assessments.
Response: A contractor is authorized to appeal a past performance
evaluation and the agency is required to provide for review at a level
above the contracting officer to consider disagreements between the
parties. The appeals process is addressed at FAR 42.1503(b) in the
current FAR, but is moved to FAR 42.1503(d) in this final rule. This
final rule does not eliminate or modify the appeals process.
Comment: One respondent stated CPARS and the FAR do not properly
address the contractor appeal process.
Response: The FAR requires that agencies provide for a review at a
level above the contracting officer. The ultimate conclusion on the
performance evaluation is a decision of the contracting agency.
Specifics of the appeal process properly are left to agencies'
discretion.
3. Rating Tables
Comment: One respondent commented that the evaluation ratings
definitions included in the proposed Tables 42-1 and 42-2 need to be
changed. The phrase ``and exceeds many'' under the Exceptional rating,
as well as the phase ``and exceeds some'' under the Very Good rating,
should be removed.
Response: These phrases allow the exceptional or very good
contractor to be rewarded for exceeding Government requirements. This
benefits the contractor not only in regard to the current requirement,
but also future requirements that it may be considered for.
Comment: One respondent commented that the FAR Council should
consider reducing the number of possible ratings from the currently
proposed five. This respondent recommended that the proposed rule
eliminate the exceptional and marginal ratings. The respondent
suggested that the FAR Council should consider mandating that Federal
owners clearly define in the solicitation or contract what type of
performance on a particular project merits ratings of Exceptional, Very
Good, Satisfactory, etc.
Response: The exceptional rating allows the Government to recognize
performance that goes well beyond the norm, and the marginal rating
allows the Government to identify a contractor that has serious
performance issues, but that is still trying to perform to the
Government requirement. The respondent's second comment is noted. The
Governmentwide CPARS Guide was released in November 2012 with the
existing five ratings (exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal,
and unsatisfactory) that were considered necessary to address various
levels of performance. It includes the description of each rating, and
the rating assigned the contractor should correspond to the performance
requirements stated in the contract or order (e.g., 30 day delivery
schedule, 100 percent report accuracy).
Comment: One respondent had a concern with the evaluation rating
definitions in Table 42-1. Specifically, the respondent felt that the
Councils should use numbers and not subjective terms such as ``few
minor problems'' or ``some minor problems''.
Response: The Councils see no issue with the words ``few'' or
``some'' in this context.
Comment: One respondent had a concern regarding past performance
evaluations including records of forecasting and cost controlling and
the impact on future contracts. This respondent felt that a contractor
could not use the best quality of raw materials in order to achieve a
lower than forecasted cost.
Response: Noted.
Comment: One respondent agreed that the revision to FAR
42.1503(b)(2)(vi) referencing ``late or nonpayment to subcontractors''
is a substantial improvement of the current FAR provision. This
respondent also suggested that the language could be further enhanced
by breaking it out from the evaluation factor ``other'' and offering it
as another evaluation factor on its own.
Response: It is not necessary to break out a separate category.
Comment: One respondent commented that, in FAR 42.1503(b)(4), the
sentence ``Rating definitions shall reflect those in the tables
below:'' should be changed to ``The narratives for the evaluation
factors must support the ratings given by reflecting the rating
definitions in the tables below:''
Response: The change to the FAR text uses similar language.
Comment: One respondent commented that, in Table 42-1, Definitions;
``Exceptional'', in the last sentence, ``corrective actions taken by
the contractor was highly effective'', should be changed to
``corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective''.
This respondent also commented that under the ``Very Good'' definition
in the last sentence, that ``corrective actions taken by the contractor
was effective'', should be changed to ``corrective action taken by the
contractor were effective''.
Response: These corrections were made in the final rule.
4. Past Performance Evaluations on Science and Technology/Research and
Development Contracts
Comments: Several respondents requested that the Councils exempt
research and development contracts, or the subset of science and
technology contracts, from past performance assessments. One respondent
asked to limit the requirement to actions exceeding $10 million
dollars. Two respondents pointed out that the CPARS guidance excludes
certain science and technology contracts. Two respondents stated that
many of the mandatory evaluation factors are not relevant to science
and technology contracts.
Response: It is not in the Government's best interest to exempt
[[Page 46787]]
research and development contracts from past performance assessments,
at any dollar value, because doing so would not allow the Government to
obtain information about the contractor's performance. There are past
performance evaluations of science and technology contracts in CPARS
now. The requirement at FAR 42.1503(b)(1) to ``include a clear, non-
technical description of the principal purpose of the contract or
order'' was added specifically for science and technology contracts.
5. Release of Information
Comments: One respondent recommended increased clarity for FAR
42.1503(d) because the paragraph could be read to allow release of past
performance information to third parties once the periods in FAR
42.1503(g) have expired. The respondent recommended that past
performance evaluations be made public after source selection. A
respondent asked that the rule clarify that the past performance
information would not be publicly displayed.
Another respondent advocated the wide release of past performance
evaluations to the public.
One respondent advocated a revision to the rule that would permit
the release of past performance information relating to late or
nonpayment of subcontractors.
Response: The purpose of this case is to provide Governmentwide
standardized past performance evaluation factors and performance rating
categories and require that past performance information be entered
into the CPARS. The proposed rule did not propose any changes to the
FAR with regard to public release of past performance evaluations.
Therefore, any such changes in the final rule would be outside the
scope of this case.
Comments: One respondent recommended that past performance ratings
information in FAPIIS be publicly displayed. The respondent requested
that it be made legal to disclose past performance information.
Response: It is outside the scope of this case to seek a
legislative change.
6. Other Comments
Comment: One respondent stated that the proposed rule creates a
double standard and allows personal judgment by the evaluator. The
respondent recommended a definition of what qualifies a contract to be
assessed under more scrutiny and a new table for contracts that fit the
definition be added to the FAR.
Response: An additional definition and new table are not necessary.
The tables added are existing tables that reside in CPARS and have been
used by various Federal acquisition personnel since the system was
established. These tables and definitions are being transferred into
the FAR to standardize and regulate the ratings and evaluation factors
across the Federal Government.
Comments: Two respondents recommended that the new process provided
for in any final rule be applied only to new solicitations first issued
after the effective date of any final rule.
Response: As a matter of policy, CPARS was implemented
Governmentwide on October 1, 2010. There was no migration of the past
performance reviews to CPARS. If a review was in process, it would have
been completed in the review system an agency was using before October
1, 2010.
III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess
all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O.
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not
subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule
under 5 U.S.C. 804.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration certify that this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because this rule codifies in
the FAR existing past performance reporting guidelines and practices.
The evaluation factors and rating system language proposed are
currently used by Federal agencies. There are no new requirements
placed on small entities.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The final rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 8, 12, 15, 17, 42, and 49
Government procurement.
Dated: July 26, 2013.
William Clark,
Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office
of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 8, 12, 15, 17, 42,
and 49 as set forth below:
0
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 8, 12, 15, and 17 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51
U.S.C. 20113.
PART 8--REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
8.406-4 [Amended]
0
2. Amend section 8.406-4 by removing from paragraph (e) ``42.1503(f)''
and adding ``42.1503(h)'' in its place.
0
3. Revise section 8.406-7 to read as follows:
8.406-7 Contractor Performance Evaluation.
Ordering activities must prepare at least annually and at the time
the work under the order is completed, an evaluation of contractor
performance for each order that exceeds the simplified acquisition
threshold in accordance with 42.1502(c).
PART 12--ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS
12.403 [Amended]
0
4. Amend section 12.403 by removing from paragraph (c)(4)
``42.1503(f)'' and adding ``42.1503(h)'' in its place.
PART 15--CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION
15.407-1 [Amended]
0
5. Amend section 15.407-1 by removing from the introductory text of
paragraph (d) ``42.1503(f)'' and adding ``42.1503(h)'' in its place.
PART 17--SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS
0
6. Amend section 17.207 by--
0
a. Removing from paragraph (c)(4) ``and'';
0
b. Removing from the end of paragraph (c)(5) the period and adding
``;'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (c)(6) and (7) to read as follows:
17.207 Exercise of options.
* * * * *
[[Page 46788]]
(c) * * *
(6) The contractor's past performance evaluations on other contract
actions have been considered; and
(7) The contractor's performance on this contract has been
acceptable, e.g., received satisfactory ratings.
* * * * *
PART 42--CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES
0
7. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 42 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51
U.S.C. 20113.
0
8. Revise sections 42.1500 and 42.1501 to read as follows:
42.1500 Scope of subpart.
This subpart provides policies and establishes responsibilities for
recording and maintaining contractor performance information. This
subpart does not apply to procedures used by agencies in determining
fees under award or incentive fee contracts. See subpart 16.4. However,
the fee amount paid to contractors should be reflective of the
contractor's performance and the past performance evaluation should
closely parallel and be consistent with the fee determinations.
42.1501 General.
(a) Past performance information (including the ratings and
supporting narratives) is relevant information, for future source
selection purposes, regarding a contractor's actions under previously
awarded contracts or orders. It includes, for example, the contractor's
record of--
(1) Conforming to requirements and to standards of good
workmanship;
(2) Forecasting and controlling costs;
(3) Adherence to schedules, including the administrative aspects of
performance;
(4) Reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer
satisfaction;
(5) Reporting into databases (see subparts 4.14 and 4.15, and
reporting requirements in the solicitation provisions and clauses
referenced in 9.104-7);
(6) Integrity and business ethics; and
(7) Business-like concern for the interest of the customer.
(b) Agencies shall monitor their compliance with the past
performance evaluation requirements (see 42.1502), and use the
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past
Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) metric tools to
measure the quality and timely reporting of past performance
information.
0
9. Amend section 42.1502 by revising paragraphs (a) through (d) and (i)
to read as follows:
42.1502 Policy.
(a) General. Past performance evaluations shall be prepared at
least annually and at the time the work under a contract or order is
completed. Past performance evaluations are required for contracts and
orders for supplies, services, research and development, and
contingency operations, including contracts and orders performed inside
and outside the United States, with the exception of architect-engineer
and construction contracts or orders, which will still be reported into
the Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS)
and Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) databases
of CPARS. These evaluations are generally for the entity, division, or
unit that performed the contract or order. Past performance information
shall be entered into CPARS, the Governmentwide evaluation reporting
tool for all past performance reports on contracts and orders.
Instructions for submitting evaluations into CPARS are available at
http://www.cpars.gov/.
(b) Contracts. Except as provided in paragraphs (e), (f), and (h)
of this section, agencies shall prepare evaluations of contractor
performance for each contract (as defined in FAR part 2) that exceeds
the simplified acquisition threshold and for each order that exceeds
the simplified acquisition threshold. Agencies are required to prepare
an evaluation if a modification to the contract causes the dollar
amount to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
(c) Orders under multiple-agency contracts. Agencies shall prepare
an evaluation of contractor performance for each order that exceeds the
simplified acquisition threshold that is placed under a Federal Supply
Schedule contract or placed under a task-order contract or a delivery-
order contract awarded by another agency (i.e., Governmentwide
acquisition contract or multi-agency contract). Agencies placing orders
under their own multiple-agency contract shall also prepare evaluations
for their own orders. This evaluation shall not consider the
requirements under paragraph (g) of this section. Agencies are required
to prepare an evaluation if a modification to the order causes the
dollar amount to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.
(d) Orders under single-agency contracts. For single-agency task-
order and delivery-order contracts, the contracting officer may require
performance evaluations for each order in excess of the simplified
acquisition threshold when such evaluations would produce more useful
past performance information for source selection officials than that
contained in the overall contract evaluation (e.g., when the scope of
the basic contract is very broad and the nature of individual orders
could be significantly different). This evaluation need not consider
the requirements under paragraph (g) of this section unless the
contracting officer deems it appropriate.
* * * * *
(i) Agencies shall promptly report other contractor information in
accordance with 42.1503(h).
0
10. Revise section 42.1503 to read as follows:
42.1503 Procedures.
(a)(1) Agencies shall assign responsibility and management
accountability for the completeness of past performance submissions.
Agency procedures for the past performance evaluation system shall--
(i) Generally provide for input to the evaluations from the
technical office, contracting office, program management office and,
where appropriate, quality assurance and end users of the product or
service;
(ii) Identify and assign past performance evaluation roles and
responsibilities to those individuals responsible for preparing and
reviewing interim evaluations, if prepared, and final evaluations
(e.g., contracting officers, contracting officer representatives,
project managers, and program managers). Those individuals identified
may obtain information for the evaluation of performance from the
program office, administrative contracting office, audit office, end
users of the product or service, and any other technical or business
advisor, as appropriate; and
(iii) Address management controls and appropriate management
reviews of past performance evaluations, to include accountability for
documenting past performance on PPIRS.
(2) If agency procedures do not specify the individuals responsible
for past performance evaluation duties, the contracting officer is
responsible for this function.
(3) Interim evaluations may be prepared as required, in accordance
with agency procedures.
(b)(1) The evaluation should include a clear, non-technical
description of the
[[Page 46789]]
principal purpose of the contract or order. The evaluation should
reflect how the contractor performed. The evaluation should include
clear relevant information that accurately depicts the contractor's
performance, and be based on objective facts supported by program and
contract or order performance data. The evaluations should be tailored
to the contract type, size, content, and complexity of the contractual
requirements.
(2) Evaluation factors for each assessment shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
(i) Technical (quality of product or service).
(ii) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-
price with economic price adjustment arrangements).
(iii) Schedule/timeliness.
(iv) Management or business relations.
(v) Small business subcontracting (as applicable, see Table 42-2).
(vi) Other (as applicable) (e.g., late or nonpayment to
subcontractors, trafficking violations, tax delinquency, failure to
report in accordance with contract terms and conditions, defective cost
or pricing data, terminations, suspension and debarments).
(3) Evaluation factors may include subfactors.
(4) Each factor and subfactor used shall be evaluated and a
supporting narrative provided. Each evaluation factor, as listed in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be rated in accordance with a
five scale rating system (i.e., exceptional, very good, satisfactory,
marginal, and unsatisfactory). The ratings and narratives must reflect
the definitions in the tables 42-1 or 42-2 of this section.
(c)(1) When the contract provides for incentive fees, the
incentive-fee contract performance evaluation shall be entered into
CPARS.
(2) When the contract provides for award fee, the award fee-
contract performance adjectival rating as described in 16.401(e)(3)
shall be entered into CPARS.
(d) Agency evaluations of contractor performance, including both
negative and positive evaluations, prepared under this subpart shall be
provided to the contractor as soon as practicable after completion of
the evaluation. The contractor will receive a CPARS-system generated
notification when an evaluation is ready for comment. Contractors shall
be given a minimum of 30 days to submit comments, rebutting statements,
or additional information. Agencies shall provide for review at a level
above the contracting officer to consider disagreements between the
parties regarding the evaluation. The ultimate conclusion on the
performance evaluation is a decision of the contracting agency. Copies
of the evaluation, contractor response, and review comments, if any,
shall be retained as part of the evaluation. These evaluations may be
used to support future award decisions, and should therefore be marked
``Source Selection Information''. Evaluation of Federal Prison
Industries (FPI) performance may be used to support a waiver request
(see 8.604) when FPI is a mandatory source in accordance with subpart
8.6. The completed evaluation shall not be released to other than
Government personnel and the contractor whose performance is being
evaluated during the period the information may be used to provide
source selection information. Disclosure of such information could
cause harm both to the commercial interest of the Government and to the
competitive position of the contractor being evaluated as well as
impede the efficiency of Government operations. Evaluations used in
determining award or incentive fee payments may also be used to satisfy
the requirements of this subpart. A copy of the annual or final past
performance evaluation shall be provided to the contractor as soon as
it is finalized.
(e) Agencies shall require frequent evaluation (e.g., monthly,
quarterly) of agency compliance with the reporting requirements in
42.1502, so agencies can readily identify delinquent past performance
reports and monitor their reports for quality control.
(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit all past performance
evaluations electronically in the CPARS at http://www.cpars.gov/. These
evaluations are automatically transmitted to PPIRS at http://www.ppirs.gov. Past performance evaluations for classified contracts
and special access programs shall not be reported in CPARS, but will be
reported as stated in this subpart and in accordance with agency
procedures. Agencies shall ensure that appropriate management and
technical controls are in place to ensure that only authorized
personnel have access to the data and the information safeguarded in
accordance with 42.1503(d).
(g) Agencies shall use the past performance information in PPIRS
that is within three years (six for construction and architect-engineer
contracts) of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract
or order, and information contained in the Federal Awardee Performance
and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), e.g., terminations for
default or cause.
(h) Other contractor performance information. (1) Agencies shall
ensure information is accurately reported in the Federal Awardee
Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) module of CPARS
within 3 calendar days after a contracting officer--
(i) Issues a final determination that a contractor has submitted
defective cost or pricing data;
(ii) Makes a subsequent change to the final determination
concerning defective cost or pricing data pursuant to 15.407-1(d);
(iii) Issues a final termination for cause or default notice; or
(iv) Makes a subsequent withdrawal or a conversion of a termination
for default to a termination for convenience.
(2) Agencies shall establish CPARS focal points who will register
users to report data into the FAPIIS module of CPARS (available at
http://www.cpars.gov/, then select FAPIIS).
(3) With regard to information that may be covered by a disclosure
exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, the contracting officer
shall follow the procedures at 9.105-2(b)(2)(iv).
Table 42-1--Evaluation Ratings Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating Definition Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Exceptional.............................. Performance meets contractual To justify an Exceptional
requirements and exceeds many rating, identify multiple
to the Government's benefit. significant events and state
The contractual performance of how they were of benefit to
the element or sub-element the Government. A singular
being evaluated was benefit, however, could be of
accomplished with few minor such magnitude that it alone
problems for which corrective constitutes an Exceptional
actions taken by the contractor rating. Also, there should
were highly effective. have been NO significant
weaknesses identified.
[[Page 46790]]
(b) Very Good................................ Performance meets contractual To justify a Very Good rating,
requirements and exceeds some identify a significant event
to the Government's benefit. and state how it was a benefit
The contractual performance of to the Government. There
the element or sub-element should have been no
being evaluated was significant weaknesses
accomplished with some minor identified.
problems for which corrective
actions taken by the contractor
were effective.
(c) Satisfactory............................. Performance meets contractual To justify a Satisfactory
requirements. The contractual rating, there should have been
performance of the element or only minor problems, or major
sub-element contains some minor problems the contractor
problems for which corrective recovered from without impact
actions taken by the contractor to the contract/order. There
appear or were satisfactory. 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 To justify Marginal
contractual requirements. The performance, identify a
contractual performance of the significant event in each
element or sub-element being category that the contractor
evaluated reflects a serious had trouble overcoming and
problem for which the state how it impacted the
contractor has not yet Government. A Marginal rating
identified corrective actions. should be supported by
The contractor's proposed referencing the management
actions appear only marginally tool that notified the
effective or were not fully contractor of the contractual
implemented. deficiency (e.g., management,
quality, safety, or
environmental deficiency
report or letter).
(e) Unsatisfactory........................... Performance does not meet most To justify an Unsatisfactory
contractual requirements and rating, identify multiple
recovery is not likely in a significant events in each
timely manner. The contractual category that the contractor
performance of the element or had trouble overcoming and
sub-element contains a serious state how it impacted the
problem(s) for which the Government. A singular
contractor's corrective actions problem, however, could be of
appear or were ineffective. 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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to
change the evaluation status.
Note 2: N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for
evaluation.
Table 42-2--Evaluation Ratings Definitions
[For the Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation Factor, when 52.219-9 is used]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rating Definition Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Exceptional.............................. Exceeded all statutory goals or To justify an Exceptional
goals as negotiated. Had rating, identify multiple
exceptional success with significant events and state
initiatives to assist, promote, how they were a benefit to
and utilize small business small business utilization. A
(SB), small disadvantaged singular benefit, however,
business (SDB), women-owned could be of such magnitude
small business (WOSB), HUBZone that it constitutes an
small business, veteran-owned Exceptional rating. Small
small business (VOSB) and businesses should be given
service disabled veteran owned meaningful and innovative work
small business (SDVOSB). directly related to the
Complied with FAR 52.219-8, contract, and opportunities
Utilization of Small Business should not be limited to
Concerns. Exceeded any other indirect work such as cleaning
small business participation offices, supplies,
requirements incorporated in landscaping, etc. Also, there
the contract/order, including should have been no
the use of small businesses in significant weaknesses
mission critical aspects of the identified.
program. Went above and beyond
the required elements of the
subcontracting plan and other
small business requirements of
the contract/order. Completed
and submitted Individual
Subcontract Reports and/or
Summary Subcontract Reports in
an accurate and timely manner.
[[Page 46791]]
(b) Very Good................................ Met all of the statutory goals To justify a Very Good rating,
or goals as negotiated. Had identify a significant event
significant success with and state how it was a benefit
initiatives to assist, promote to small business utilization.
and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, Small businesses should be
HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. given meaningful and
Complied with FAR 52.219-8, innovative opportunities to
Utilization of Small Business participate as subcontractors
Concerns. Met or exceeded any for work directly related to
other small business the contract, and
participation requirements opportunities should not be
incorporated in the contract/ limited to indirect work such
order, including the use of as cleaning offices, supplies,
small businesses in mission landscaping, etc. There should
critical aspects of the be no significant weaknesses
program. Endeavored to go above identified.
and beyond the required
elements of the subcontracting
plan. Completed and submitted
Individual Subcontract Reports
and/or Summary Subcontract
Reports in an accurate and
timely manner.
(c) Satisfactory............................. Demonstrated a good faith effort To justify a Satisfactory
to meet all of the negotiated rating, there should have been
subcontracting goals in the only minor problems, or major
various socio-economic problems the contractor has
categories for the current addressed or taken corrective
period. Complied with FAR action. There should have been
52.219-8, Utilization of Small no significant weaknesses
Business Concerns. Met any identified. A fundamental
other small business principle of assigning ratings
participation requirements is that contractors will not
included in the contract/order. be assessed a rating lower
Fulfilled the requirements of than Satisfactory solely for
the subcontracting plan not performing beyond the
included in the contract/order. requirements of the contract/
Completed and submitted order.
Individual Subcontract Reports
and/or Summary Subcontract
Reports in an accurate and
timely manner.
(d) Marginal................................. Deficient in meeting key To justify Marginal
subcontracting plan elements. performance, identify a
Deficient in complying with FAR significant event that the
52.219-8, Utilization of Small contractor had trouble
Business Concerns, and any overcoming and how it impacted
other small business small business utilization. A
participation requirements in Marginal rating should be
the contract/order. Did not supported by referencing the
submit Individual Subcontract actions taken by the
Reports and/or Summary government that notified the
Subcontract Reports in an contractor of the contractual
accurate or timely manner. deficiency.
Failed to satisfy one or more
requirements of a corrective
action plan currently in place;
however, does show an interest
in bringing performance to a
satisfactory level and has
demonstrated a commitment to
apply the necessary resources
to do so. Required a corrective
action plan.
(e) Unsatisfactory........................... Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 To justify an Unsatisfactory
and 52.219-9, and any other rating, identify multiple
small business participation significant events that the
requirements in the contract/ contractor had trouble
order. Did not submit overcoming and state how it
Individual Subcontract Reports impacted small business
and/or Summary Subcontract utilization. A singular
Reports in an accurate or problem, however, could be of
timely manner. Showed little such serious magnitude that it
interest in bringing alone constitutes an
performance to a satisfactory Unsatisfactory rating. An
level or is generally Unsatisfactory rating should
uncooperative. Required a be supported by referencing
corrective action plan. the actions taken by the
government to notify the
contractor of the
deficiencies. When an
Unsatisfactory rating is
justified, the contracting
officer must consider whether
the contractor made a good
faith effort to comply with
the requirements of the
subcontracting plan required
by FAR 52.219-9 and follow the
procedures outlined in FAR
52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-
Subcontracting Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to
change evaluation status.
Note 2: Generally, zero percent is not a goal unless the contracting officer determined when negotiating the
subcontracting plan that no subcontracting opportunities exist in a particular socio-economic category. In
such cases, the contractor shall be considered to have met the goal for any socio-economic category where the
goal negotiated in the plan was zero.
[[Page 46792]]
PART 49--TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS
0
11. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 49 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51
U.S.C. 20113.
49.402-8 [Amended]
0
12. Amend section 49.402-8 by removing ``42.1503(f)'' and adding
``42.1503(h)'' in its place.
[FR Doc. 2013-18461 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P