Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contractor Comment Period, Past Performance Evaluations
A Rule by the
Entry Type: Rule
Action: Final rule.
Document Citation: 79 FR 31197
Page: 31197 -31201 (5 pages)
CFR: 48 CFR 42
Agency/Docket Numbers: FAC 2005-74
FAR Case 2012-028
Docket No. 2012-0028, Sequence No. 1
Document Number: 2014-12407
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-12407
DoD, GSA, and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DoD, GSA, and
Ten respondents submitted comments on the proposed rule.
II. Discussion and Analysis
A. Analysis of Changes
No changes were made from the proposed rule as a result of the public comments.
B. Analysis of Public Comments
1. Contractor Response Time of Fourteen Days
Comments: Almost all respondents commented on the burden imposed on contractors to submit comments in a maximum of 14 days, especially given that FAR 42.1503 provides "a minimum of 30 days" for contractors to provide comments, rebuttals, or additional information. One respondent cited statistics from the
Percentage .....Contractor response times
19 .....No comments provided.
43 .....Comments provided within 14 days.
30 .....Comments provided between 14-30 days.
9 .....Comments provided after 30 days.
Two other respondents noted that, when the contractor disagrees with any given Government evaluation or comment, it takes time for the contractor to gather input from multiple employees and subcontractors and draft an objective response, i.e., more than 14 days in their opinion. A respondent noted that DoD had more than doubled the number of contracting officials trained on contract past performance from FY 2010 to 2012, but that, as of
Another respondent stated that, after receipt of the past performance evaluation, the contractor "has the opportunity to request a meeting with the assessment official to discuss differences and possible modifications to the ratings and the comments." These meetings, according to the respondent, often result in a better assessment for the Government.
One respondent noted that the statutory action of providing up to 14 days from the date of delivery is beneficial in that it sets a generally applicable fixed period.
One respondent requested that the current 30-day period be retained and not reduced because the shortened time may lead many contractors to seek additional business opportunities in the private-rather than Federal-market.
One respondent stated that, because the 14-day time period is statutory, the Councils should consider guidelines to ensure that requirements for the content of past performance evaluations are clear, concise, and contain sufficient detail to allow a contractor to promptly begin its assessment of any negative findings.
Last, a respondent quoted paragraph (d) of section 853, which reads as follows:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a contractor from submitting comments, rebuttals, or additional information pertaining to past performance after the period described in subsection (c)(2) has elapsed or to prohibit a contractor from challenging a past performance evaluation in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, or procedures.
Response: The FAR is incorporating section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Paragraph (c) of section 853 provides, at (c)(2) and (3), that "contractors are afforded up to 14 calendar days, from the date of delivery of the information provided in accordance with paragraph (1), to submit comments, rebuttals, or additional information pertaining to past performance for inclusion in such databases;" and that "agency evaluations of contractor past performance, including any comments, rebuttals, or additional information submitted under paragraph (2), are included in the relevant past performance database not later than the date that is 14 days after the date of delivery of the information provided in accordance with paragraph (1)." The information provided in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) is the notice that a past performance evaluation has been submitted to CPARS. CPARS will generate a notice to the contractor automatically, so the 14 calendar day period for contractor comments begins at that point in time. The law specifically states that the 14 days allotted for contractor comments are calendar days, not business days or any other method of counting days. The Councils are aware of the effort and coordination involved in gathering, summarizing, and vetting possible responses but were provided no latitude under the terms of the law.
There is no requirement in the law for the Government assessing official to meet with the contractor. However, if the contractor requests such a meeting, the assessing official may accept the request. In this case, the statute is clear and does not allow for alterations to the 14 calendar day time frame and requires that the past performance evaluation must be made available for the use of source selection officials 14 days after its initial submission, and it will be made available at that time with any contractor comments that have been received. Delaying the availability of the contractor's comments until after a meeting with the assessing official would only result in the past performance evaluation being seen by source selection officials without them having the benefit of any contractor comments. The CPARS and PPIRS systems have been revised so that transfers between CPARS and PPIRS occur automatically, thus eliminating delays in availability. The assessing official, who may also be the contracting officer, has a responsibility to review the contractor's comments when, and if, they are submitted by the contractor, but that review should not be allowed to delay or prevent source selection officials from seeing the contractor's comments as soon as they are provided.
The Councils are mindful of the terms of section 853, including paragraph (d), and have structured this rule so that contractor comments, rebuttals, or additional information can be submitted at any point in time between the initial notification of availability of a past performance evaluation until the evaluation is removed from PPIRS and archived (see FAR 42.1503(g)). The other element of section 853(d), the ability for a contractor to appeal a past performance evaluation and have a review at a level above the contracting officer, is retained, without change, in the FAR at 42.1503(d).
The intent of the statute is to make timely, relevant past performance information available to source selection officials without delay. The statute ensures that past performance information moves forward without allowing for delays caused by agencies or contractors. Any information or changes from such meetings or reviews will be added to the past performance information as it becomes available, but its absence will no longer lengthen the process.
2. Accuracy of Information Available to Source Selection Officials
Comments: Nine respondents submitted comments concerning the proposed rule requirement that past performance evaluations be available to source selection officials not later than 14 days after the evaluation was provided to the contractor, whether or not the contractor comments have been received. Four respondents stated this requirement may result in agencies relying upon potentially inaccurate or erroneous information in source selection decisions and may increase the number of disputes. One respondent stated past performance evaluations which do not have the benefit of either the contractor's comments or the more senior official's review could be obtained by source selection officials but would impact these source selections officials since they would have to take the time to address contractor reactions to the evaluations. One respondent stated that the reductions in the contractor comment period places the integrity of the past performance system at significant risk due to the likelihood that it will result in incorrect information passing through the system and on to procurement offices. Another respondent strongly objects to halving the time allotted for contractor comment because it would "sacrifice the quality (of past performance evaluations) for quantity." One respondent commented on the mechanism to make changes to incomplete or inaccurate reports after they have been provided to PPIRS. The respondent is concerned that, although the mechanism is in place to correct mistakes, the inaccurate information would be available for release before the information is corrected.
Response: The FAR is incorporating section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2013 and section 806 of the NDAA for FY 2012. These laws require that past performance evaluations be made available to source selection officials not later than 14 days after the evaluation was provided to the contractor, whether or not contractor comments have been received. The purpose of the 14 calendar day deadline is to make timely, relevant past performance information available to source selection officials without delay so that award decisions can be better informed and made in a more timely manner. Having a past performance evaluation, with the contractor's comments and explanations included, available to source selection officials in 14-days will be advantageous, not detrimental, to most contractors. These timely evaluations will allow contractors that are meeting their contractual obligations to be more competitive for future awards. Therefore, it is anticipated that the deadline for comments will serve as a greater impetus to contractors to meet the new 14 calendar day deadline for comments. When a contractor is unable to provide comments within 14 days, however, the changes to CPARS and PPIRS will enable the contractor's comments to be added to the past performance evaluation after the evaluation has been moved into PPIRS. Currently, if a contractor does not submit comments, rebuttals, or additional information with regard to a past performance evaluation, the evaluation remains in CPARS indefinitely and will not move to PPIRS so as to become available to source selection officials.
In addition, the system changes to CPARS and PPIRS will allow the Government to revise the evaluation after it has moved to PPIRS, if the Government determines that such revisions are appropriate. OFPP issued guidance in its memoranda dated
3. Posting of the Evaluation
Comment: One respondent found FAR 42.1503(f) of the proposed rule ambiguous "as to whether the rule permits the agency to post its evaluation before receiving the contractor comments within this 14-day period." This respondent requested a clarification in the final rule to the effect that "the agency will not post the evaluation until it affords the contractor the opportunity to submit its comments with in this 14-day period, or if no contractor comments are forthcoming, at the end of the 14-day period."
Response: If a contractor has submitted comments to the Government and the Government has not closed the evaluation (i.e., reconciled the comments), the evaluation as well as any contractor comment will be posted to the database automatically 14 days after the evaluations are provided to the contractor. In this case, the database will apply a "Contractor Comment Pending Government Review" notification to the evaluation. Once the Government completes the evaluation, the database will be updated the following day and remove this notification. Also, CPARS and PPIRS software will not allow a past performance evaluation to be released into PPIRS until the end of the 14th day, unless the evaluation has been completed by the Government (i.e., the contractor has commented and the Government has reconciled the comments).
4. Further Updates to a Past Performance Evaluation
Comments: Three respondents stated the proposed rule does not require the Government to timely revise a past performance evaluation in PPIRS if the Government determines, after the 14-day period expired, that it was in error, and these respondents recommend that the final rule include a deadline by which the Government shall update PPIRS to include any contractor comments provided after the initial comment period as well as any subsequent agency review of comments received, within 14 days of receipt of such additional comments. The respondents suggest a 14-day deadline be established for agency updates to PPIRS or require the Government to update PPIRS to include the current status of the evaluation review process and include the submissions and final evaluations "promptly" or "within a reasonable time". Another respondent recommended that the agency senior reviewer be given a deadline of 5 working days to resolve any differences. One respondent commented that one of its member companies had a CPARS assessment done with which it did not concur, and that the company submitted its response in a timely manner; however, the respondent stated that the assessing officer did not respond in a reasonable amount of time to the response.
Response: Agencies are required to have internal management and technical controls for past performance evaluations. Agency compliance delays should be addressed with the office that issued the assessment and its management. A specific past performance evaluation should be discussed with the assessing official responsible for the past performance evaluation.
5. Contractors' Interim Response
Comment: The respondent proposed allowing contractors to submit an interim response; the interim response would be to the effect that the contractor is in the process of reviewing the evaluation and will provide final comments.
Response: Contractors can submit an interim response but any interim response received will be posted and may be evaluated as if it were the final response.
6. System Changes
Comments: A respondent stated that the Government should provide a timeline when CPARS and PPIRS system changes/updates will be started, completed, tested, and verified. Another respondent stated that the rule should not be made effective until these critical systems (software) changes have been put into effect.
Response: The effective date for the FAR change is aligned with the effective date for the system changes. The systems changes are expected to be fully operational on
Comment: One respondent commented that, given the severely truncated timeline, more than one contractor focal point per contract should be allowed to receive draft CPARS reports.
Response: The FAR does not prevent contractors from assigning more than one contractor focal point per contract. Although each contractor has one primary focal point, the CPARS Program Office recommends that the same contractor could have multiple back-up focal points, all of whom would receive an email notification that a past performance evaluation had been submitted to CPARS.
Comment: One respondent commented that automatic notification to the contractor when a past performance evaluation is available should be specified with a standardized cover sheet and a label warning the contractor about the 14-day deadline; the respondent suggested that FAR 53.302-17 (
Response: A standardized PPIRS notification email will be sent to the contractor's stated contact point via email once a past performance evaluation is available for review by the contractor.
Comment: One respondent urged public access to contractor performance information relating to late or nonpayment of subcontractors.
Response: The public access to contractor performance information is currently prohibited per FAR 9.105-2(b)(2)(iii) as required by section 3010 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-212).
Comment: One respondent requested the creation of a new FAR clause mandating timely submission of past performance evaluations and stating the contractor's right to dispute untimely past performance evaluations.
Response: The FAR requires the Government to submit timely past performance evaluations. FAR 42.1503(d) requires agencies to evaluate a contractor's performance after the end of the period of performance as soon as practicable. Once the evaluation is completed and submitted to CPARS, CPARS will automatically send it to the contractor. After the 14-day period, the Government's evaluation and the contractor's response, if any, will be posted in PPIRS. A FAR clause is not necessary because contractors have the right to dispute past performance evaluations, regardless of when the evaluations are submitted for the contractor's review.
Comment: One respondent suggested assigning a regional "overseer" or "ombudsman" for the evaluation process.
Response: FAR 42.1503, Agency procedures, requires agencies to establish roles and responsibilities for ensuring past performance information is timely reported in CPARS and PPIRS. OFPP's
Comment: One respondent commented that some agencies overuse past performance questionnaires, and this should be considered for correction in the FAR, to streamline the past performance evaluation process.
Response: Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), offerors are provided an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. However, this rule is not intended to set standards for use of past performance questionnaires across the Federal Government.
Comment: One respondent commented that the Government should consider assessing the actual impact of the rule 12 to 18 months after implementation.
Response: FAR regulations are periodically reviewed for continuous improvement and industry is always invited to submit regulatory change proposals. For the past several years, OFPP has issued memoranda to improve agencies use and reporting of past performance information and is also exploring ways to enhance the evaluation process and systems. Further, the law, at paragraph (e) of section 853 of the NDAA for FY 2013, requires a review and report by the Comptroller General on the actions taken by the
[*Federal RegisterVJ 2014-05-30]
For more information about
Most Popular Stories
- Americans Still Pessimistic Despite Economic Growth
- Bogdanovitch Delivers Laughs With 'She's Funny'
- Labor Day Travel Up, Gas Prices Down
- Nintendo Launching 'Amiibo' Toy-game Franchise
- U.K. Raises Terror Threat Level to 'Severe'
- Apple to Unveil New Items on Sept. 9
- Parra Joins Exclusive Club of Hispanic CEOs
- Axxis Solutions Appoints Benites as CEO
- Obama Puts Ukraine Violence on Russia
- Canada, Russia Go to War (on Twitter)