Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 42, Subpart 42.15 provides the policies for federal agencies to establish, record, and maintain contractor past performance information. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is the official resource used by agencies to comply with and monitor compliance with these policies.
This article provides some key considerations to enhance the reader’s understanding of the FAR prescriptions, AND, the user/participants experience using the CPARS.
The “orders under single-agency contracts” Policy (FAR 42.1502(d))
This policy owns definitive clout and the interpretation of this policy warrants some appreciative clarity and confirmation. The policy reads:
“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)….”
Does this policy establish that an evaluation cannot be performed on both the basic contract and each established order alternately during the contract term?
The “Guidance for the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System – July 2024” (the “ CPARS Guide”), Section B 2.2 provides that:
“If the base indefinite-delivery contract is evaluated, then none of the task/delivery orders placed against it should be evaluated individually” and that:
“If the base indefinite-delivery contract is not evaluated, then all of the task/delivery orders meeting the reporting threshold placed against it requires an evaluation to be completed.”
Is there a contradiction or what is the correct interpretation?
If a “contract term” is comprised of 12 months, it would stand to reason that an evaluation would be established for either the basic contract OR an order established for specific performance dependent upon the “Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDV)” type; though FAR as written, does not prohibit the use of both evaluations for a 12-month term, if necessary.
However, since FAR does prescribe that contractor performance evaluations shall be conducted “at least annually and at the time the work under a contract or order is completed”, and if an IDV contract term is comprised of a base and optional 12-month annual performance periods, an agency can evaluate contractor performance on either the basic contract or an established order for an elected 12-month annual performance period.
The CPARS Guide instruction states that if one of the vehicles is used (e.g., basic contract or order) to complete an evaluation, that same vehicle must always be used for each performance period of the contract term or until contract completion. However, again, that is not what FAR specifically prescribes. Agencies may alternately complete assessments per vehicle, per performance period, in agreement with the FAR prescription.
The reason the CPARS guidance prescribes the selection of one vehicle type for all evaluations (as would be applicable) is to preclude the completion of simultaneous assessments for both vehicles in the same 12-month individual performance period, and that is because an agency will NOT receive “compliance” credit if the agency completes evaluations for both types of vehicles (basic contract or order) in an individual performance period. CPARS agency evaluation compliance metrics are determined by completed evaluations for the selected contract vehicle per performance period. Specifically, the CPARS application includes a reporting tool to calculate and establish “compliance” metrics. If performance evaluations are completed for both vehicles, agencies would only receive compliance credit for one of the evaluations of the individual performance period.
Moreover, even if evaluations are completed for both vehicles simultaneously, the evaluation records will remain in CPARS and users will not experience red flag/non-compliance notifications of multiple evaluation errors; the agency will simply not receive compliance credit for both evaluation records. An agency would receive, however, a higher or more compliance credit for more completed evaluations, e.g., numerous order evaluations in lieu of one completed basic contract evaluation per performance period for the entire contract term. Again, the key takeaway is that agencies may alternately complete assessments per vehicle, per performance period.
CPARS TRAINING
User/Participant training to properly operate and navigate the CPARS is not prescribed by the FAR and is not specifically stipulated as a requirement in the CPARS Guide or Manual documents, although the CPARS includes a number of Computer-Based Training (CBT) modules for potential users to properly operate and navigate the system. However, the CPARS Guide, Manual, other documents and menu options and functionalities provide the same instruction and training instruction as provided in the CBTs and this is because usage of the CPARS ”automated performance collection capability is aimed at ………improving the business process, and increasing efficiency”, so users/participants can either take the automated training provided in the CPARS, OR, use the Guides, Manuals and other systematic documents and menus to learn how to operate and navigate the system; it’s a wholistic, self-sufficient system. The CPARS Guide “defines the who, what, when, where and why for writing evaluations”, and the CPARS Manual “defines how to navigate and use all the functionality found in the CPARS application”. The Manual also “provides working-level procedures for entering, updating, revising, and viewing information in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Automated Information System (AIS)”.
The FAR also provides guidance on contractor performance evaluation factor and subfactor definitions and commensurate ratings at FAR 42.1503, Tables 42-1 and 42-2.
While FAR Tables 42-1 and 42-2 does provide objective guidelines and “Notes” to “Justify” or identify examples to support the definitions provided, when using the definitions and notes together, additional contextual guidelines are still needed to elaborate the objective. Moreover, a number of external CPARS training sources/resources simply re-iterate or illustrate the FAR Tables in the training instruction, so users are still quizzed about making the right connection between the definition and note instruction. However, a more helpful elaboration on the requirements of evaluation definitions and ratings may read as follows:
Evaluation: Rating and Description (Narratives) (FAR 42.1503(b)(1)(2)(3) and (4)) – Evaluations should present a clear (understandable), factual, literal, and fair assessment of contractor performance experience. Specifically, in this manner, assessments should describe and clarify contractor performance activity to meet the requirements and purpose of a contract. For example, a description would narrate how contractual performance including happenstance events developed and operated to produce and/or contribute to successful or unsuccessful contract performance. Higher ratings would require more explanation of a particular performance event to assign the proper rating, and, when the performance requirements are more technical and complex. By contradistinction, lower, unfavorably rated assessments may also require more detail and/or sufficient explanation.
For specifically positive ratings, an elaboration may read as follows:
Positive Ratings (FAR Table 42-1) – At a minimum, compliant and/or more favorably (e.g., Satisfactory, Very Good, Exceptional) rated contractor performance must meet the requirements of a contract with no occurrence of major, impactful weaknesses in the performance. Moreover, assigned performance ratings that surpass “Satisfactory” should describe, stipulate and enumerate, etc., the performance events in particular that more than met contract performance requirements to the extent that the Government realized a benefit or benefits of a kind. Some examples may include: how the contractors used engineered skill and resources to introduce or produce a more wholistic or streamlined service approach/process; the reduction or elimination of future costs (cost avoidance); independently developed/demonstrated innovation, etc. (See FAR 1.102)
For specifically negative ratings, an elaboration may read as follows:
Negative Ratings – Unfavorable (e.g., Marginal, Unsatisfactory) performance ratings represent that contract performance does not meet the contract performance requirements, e.g., performance did not execute or fulfill the specific goals and objectives of the contract: inferior quality of products, unqualified contractor personnel/laborers, inadequate planning and control of technical tasks; failure to adhere to delivery schedules – missed deadlines; unsuccessful or non-existent corrective action, etc. The assigned performance rating should fully describe, as applicable, how the contractor’s performance developed a serious (critical and fundamental) problem or impediment to successful contract performance and how the contractor’s efforts to correct the problem were either partially successful or unsuccessful.
The Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation Factor (Table 42-2)
As stipulated in FAR Clause 52.219-19, subcontracting plan requirements and activities are not limited to meeting specific percentage goals and dollar values, they also include that contractors shall comply with other elements or all of the elements prescribed for a proper subcontracting plan.
A concise elaboration of the definitions and Notes in Table 42-2 may read as follows to help the reader comprehend the totality of the definitions and notes specified:
Small Business (SB) Subcontracting (FAR 42.1502(g)) and (FAR Table 42-2) – When applicable, evaluations should address and compare actual contract performance by the stipulated goals and elements of subcontracting plans; the demonstrated effort practiced to achieve the goals, the goals that were accomplished and compliance with the plan elements. In this manner, positive ratings are supported by the description of observed performance compliance with the plan elements and the effort made to either meet or exceed the stipulated goals; the actual goals achieved and the benefit(s) realized through the proper and contractual utilization of SB concerns (e.g., how material SB participation produced useful innovation), etc. There should be no occurrence of major, impactful weaknesses in the observed efforts/performance. Negative ratings represent noncompliance or limited compliance with the subcontracting plan elements and that the required effort was not made to meet the subcontracting plan goals and/or the goals were not achieved.
A final point to be made on contractor performance evaluation factor definitions and explanations for assessments is again, the efficiency accommodated in the CPARS. Specifically, the CPARS Guide, provides , “it is of the utmost importance that the AO” (that’s the “Assessing Official”) “submits a rating consistent with the definitions of each rating and thoroughly describes the circumstances surrounding a rating.” Hence, the Guide provides a separate section devoted to “Instructions for Completing Evaluations” as an appendix which includes broad explanations of how to address every element of an evaluation including the evaluation factors, e.g.:
A lasting consideration to promulgate is that readers and users/participants become thoroughly familiar with the CPARS resources and as they supplement the FAR.
When operating and navigating the CPARS, users/participants may find the attached CPARS Resource Matrix Helpful.