Federal agencies have been directed to set “aggressive performance targets” to improve collection and use of information about contractor performance.
In a memo to agency Chief Acquisition Officers (CAOs) and Senior Procurement Executives (SPEs) Joseph Jordan, head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), underscored the importance of collecting and using information on contractor performance and integrity. Assessing government contractors’ performance “is critical to informing source selection and award decisions and ensuring the government builds relationships with high-performing suppliers,” he said.
Jordan stressed that efforts by OFPP working with agency acquisition officers and procurement executives have developed new management tools to provide contracting officers with valuable contractor information to help them make selection and award decisions. Now, Jordan said agencies must increase the use of these tools”to avoid poor acquisition outcomes in the future.”
The memo sets three goals for agencies to improve the collection and use of contractor performance information: 1) set aggressive performance targets; 2) establish a baseline for reporting compliance; and 3) guarantee workforce training.
OFPP has set minimum targets, over three years, for CFO Act agencies to fully comply with the requirement to report performance information into the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Targets vary for agencies depending on their current level of compliance. However, in all cases, agencies must reach full compliance by September 30, 2015.
To assist agencies to meet their targets, OFPP requires agencies by April 15, 2013 to establish a performance reporting baseline (based on cumulative data in PPIRS form FY2009 to 2012), set “aggressive targets” to meet their three-year compliance goals, and report quarterly updates on the MAX website. The MAX website includes metrics from the PPIRS Compliance Metric Report. Agencies are directed to review their internal collection and assessment policies.
The memo also directs CAOs and SPEs “to ensure that their acquisition workforce is knowledgeable of the past performance regulations and procedures.” Agencies should update their past performance guidance and ensure that their acquisition data quality plans stress the need for continuing improvement in contractor performance and integrity information.
Agencies are also encouraged to utilize training courses, such as those offered by the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI) and Defense Acquisition University (DAU), to help the acquisition workforce “understand their unique roles in assessing and evaluating contractors.” These courses (listed in an attachment to the memo) also offer training for acquisition certification programs.
What the memo fails to address is why the information is not being entered into PPIRS to begin with, and also why contractor oversight is currently so lax. It is a startling abrogation of ones duties to those responsible with being stewards of taxpayers money, and one that needs corrective actions through enforcement and proper program management.
Past performance, especially for services, should be one of the most important evaluation criteria in selecting a contractor for award. However, the incomplete or missing data, combined with allowing contractors to submit their own evaluations from favored customers, often does not allow for differentiation and drives evaluations in areas that often let irresponsible contractors get way with murder because they offer ridiculously low-prices to win work in this era of institutionalizing “buying in.”
I agree with the comment above. Past performance should really be the biggest determining factor in federal procurement. If new contractors are entertained, additional training must be given.
Encouraging them is not enough though, it should be a requirement. The low prices offered by a contractor is definitely tempting but really, there should be more to it.