cpars seminar (october 2006)

Naval Sea Logistics Center

www.cpars.navy.milwww.cpars.navy.mil

Welcome toWelcome to

TrainingTraining



Instructor InformationInstructor Information



Welcoming Remarks - LogisticsWelcoming Remarks - Logistics

Breaks

Facilities



Agenda Agenda

Policy and Program Metrics

Workflow: Contract Registration

Ratings and Narratives

Workflow: CPAR Initiation - Closure

Reports, Helpful Hints & CPAR Strategies

CPARS Management Board

Past Performance Information Retrieval System

Focal Point Session (Optional)



Why Evaluate Contractor Performance?Why Evaluate Contractor Performance?

DoD Directed Collection and Use of PPI in 1998

Office of Federal Procurement Policy and Federal Acquisition Regulations Require:

Collection and Maintenance of Past Performance Information (PPI) for Use in the

Award Decisions for Competitive Acquisitions



Regulatory RequirementsRegulatory Requirements

FAR 42.1502: Agencies Shall Prepare an Evaluation of Contractor Performance

FAR 15.304: Past Performance Shall be Evaluated in All Source Selections for Negotiated Competitive Acquisitions

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

CPARS Shall be Used to Prepare Contractor Performance Evaluations

PPIRS Shall be Used as a Source of Past Performance Information in Source Selections

Navy: NMCARS 5242.15 & 5215.305Air Force: AFFARS 5342.1503 & 5315.305, AF Past Performance Evaluation GuideArmy: AFARS 5142.15 (Under Revision)

AcquisitionRegulation Supplements



Past Performance Process OverviewPast Performance Process Overview

CPARS

Gov’t Program Manager/Contracting Officer

Contractor Representative

PPIRS

Gov’t Source Selection Officials

Contractor SeniorManagement



CPARS Primary ObjectivesCPARS Primary Objectives

Support Best Value Source Selection Decisions – Awards for Proven Performers (FAR 15)

Provide Up-To-Date Documentation of Contractor’s Ability to Meet Requirements (FAR 42)

Motivate Improved Performance

Facilitate Government - Contractor Communication



CPAR AssessmentsCPAR Assessments

Pre-Decisional in Nature

Protected Throughout Life Cycle

Accessible By:– Government Personnel with Need to Know– Contractor who is Subject of Evaluation

Retained for 3 Years After Contract Completion

Treated as Source Selection Information IAW FAR 3.104



CPARS GrowthCPARS Growth

Marine Corps Air Force

Missile Defense Agency

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Defense Logistics

Agency

Defense

Commissary Agency

TRICARE

Army Corps of Engineers

ArmyNavy

Defense Information Systems Agency



CPARS Metrics at a GlanceCPARS Metrics at a Glance

Government Users: 14,805

Industry Users: 11,329

Contract Value: $1.64 Trillion

* Metrics as of 01 November, 2006

Completed Assessments: 33,893



CPARS & CommunicationCPARS & Communication

Is CPARS an Effective Tool for Improving Government-Contractor Communication?

91% 98%

Government Contractor

YES!



CPARS Reporting ThresholdsCPARS Reporting Thresholds

Business Sector Dollar Threshold

Systems > $5,000,000

Ship Repair & Overhaul > $500,000

Services > $1,000,000

Health Care > $100,000

Operations Support > $5,000,000

Fuels > $100,000

Information Technology > $1,000,000

Government may choose to write a CPAR on contracts below the dollar thresholds



Business SectorsBusiness Sectors

Systems

– Aircraft– Shipbuilding– Space– Ordnance– Ground Vehicles– Training Systems– Sub-Systems




Services– Professional/Technical/Management Support– Installation Maintenance– Healthcare– Repair & Overhaul– Transportation




Operations Support– Spares– Repair Parts– Electronics– Ammunition– Mechanical– Electrical– Structural– Fuels– Troop Support– Base Supplies– Commercial Off the Shelf




Information Technology– Software– Hardware– Telecommunications




CPAR NOT REQUIRED

Architect - Engineering Services

Construction

Science & Technology (R&D Budget Accounts 6.1, 6.2, or 6.3)

Entered inACASS

Entered inCCASS



Reporting FrequencyReporting Frequency

ContractYear 1

Initial Report

ContractYear 2

Intermediate Report

ContractYear 3

Final Report

Addendum ReportContractYear 3.5

Optional

ContractYear 2.5

Out-of-Cycle ReportOptional




Initial Report

– Required if Period of Performance > 365 Days

– Not Required if Period of Performance < 365 Days Write Final CPAR Only

– No More Than 12 Months of Actual Performance

– Assessment Period May Begin After Contract Award Date

Protests Delayed Starts




Intermediate Reports

– Required Every 12 Months

– Complete with Other Reviews Option Exercise Award Fee Determinations Program Milestones

– Required Upon Transfer of Program Management Responsibility Outside Original Buying Activity

– Not Cumulative: Assess Only Performance Occurring After Last Assessment Period




Out of Cycle Report

– Written if Significant Change in Performance Written at Government’s Discretion Contractor May Request

– Address Only Those Areas That Have Changed

– No More Than 2 CPARS Completed Per Year

Great Performance Motivator




Final Report

– Required at Contract Completion Delivery of Final Major End Item End of Period of Performance

– Required Upon Contract Termination

– Not Cumulative: Assess Only Performance Occurring After Last Assessment Period




Addendum Report

– Evaluate Contract Close-Out

– Evaluate Warranty Performance

– Evaluate Performance With Respect To Other Administrative Requirements

– Written at Government’s Discretion




All CPARs Are Due Within 120 Days After the End of the

Assessment Period



Contract TypesContract Types

Indefinite-Delivery-Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ)

Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs)

Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs)

Federal Supply Schedules/GSA Orders

Joint Ventures

Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)

Classified & Special Access Programs

Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs)




Indefinite-Delivery-Indefinite-Quantity

Individual CPAR for Each Order

One CPAR at Basic Contract Level Covering All Orders Under Contract

Consolidation Appropriate if Orders Similar in Scope

See Local Policy for Additional Details



Contract Types - IDIQContract Types - IDIQ

Navy– Individual Orders– Group Orders for Similar

Products & Services– Consolidate by Contract

(Minimum Requirement)

Air Force– Individual Orders– Consolidate by Contract

(Minimum Requirement)

Army– Individual Orders– Group Orders for Similar

Products & Services– Consolidate by Contract– Specified in Basic Contract

Navy: Requiring Activity Writes CPAR for Own Orders– Individual Orders – Group Orders for Similar

Products & Services– Single CPAR for All

Requiring Activity Orders (Minimum Requirement)

Air Force: Requiring / Ordering Activity Writes CPAR for Own Orders– Individual Orders that Exceed

Threshold

Army: Requiring Activity May– Prepare CPAR– Provide Input to CPAR– Specified in Basic Contract

IDIQ: Single Activity orOrganization Use

IDIQ: Multiple Activity orOrganization Use




Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs)Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs)

Individual CPAR for Each Order

One CPAR at Basic Agreement Level Covering All Orders Under Agreement

Consolidation Appropriate if Orders Similar in Scope

See Local Policy for Additional Details




Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs) & Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs)

Navy: Requiring Activity Writes CPAR for Own Orders / CallsIndividual Call / OrderGroup Calls / Orders for Similar Products or ServicesConsolidate by Agreement (Minimum Requirement)

Air Force: Requiring / Ordering Activity Writes CPAR for Own Orders / CallsIndividual Calls / Orders that Exceed Threshold

Army:Individual Call/OrderGroup Calls/Orders for Similar Products or ServicesConsolidate by Agreement




Federal Supply Schedules / GSA Orders

Requiring Activity / Ordering Agency Prepares CPAR– Best Position to Evaluate Performance

Threshold Determined on Order-by-Order Basis

Each Order Reported Individually

Contract Number = GSA Schedule # (Required)Order Number = Local “F” Order Number (Required)




Joint Venture

Single CPAR Prepared if Unique DUNS Number / CAGE Code Assigned

Multiple Identical CPARs Prepared if Separate DUNS Numbers / CAGE Codes Assigned




Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC)

CPAR Written on CCC– CCC is Prime Contractor with Overall Responsibility

for Performance

List Canadian Subcontractor on CPAR (Block 15)– Canadian Subcontractor Performs Actual Work– Include DUNS & CAGE




Classified & Special Access Programs

CPARs for Classified Programs NOT Entered into CPARS Automated System– CPAR Processed in Accordance With Program

Security Requirements– CPAR Maintained and Distributed in Accordance With

Agency Procedures



Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs)Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs) Prior to Definitization

– Address Performance Beginning with Date UCA Issued

– Address Contractor’s Ability to Remain within UCA Cost Limitations

Following Definitization– Address Contractor’s Efforts in Promoting Contract

Definitization– If Definitized as Cost-Type Contract – Continue to

Address Cost Control– If Definitized as Firm-Fixed Price Contract – Only

Address Cost Control Efforts Prior to Definitization




Focal Point Focal Point

Assign Players Access

May Determine Contracts Requiring CPARs

Registers Contracts

May Educate and Assist the Players

May Provide Guidance to Contractors Government

Only!



Gov’t PMContracting

ContractorRepresentative

Senior Gov’tManagement

Focal Point

Focal PointFocal Point

CPARSContract #/User/Access Level

Status Report RequestContract Registration

User ID CPAR Status

User Account InfoProcess MonitoringPolicy GuidanceTraining



User RolesUser Roles

Focal Point (FP) – Sets Up Accounts, Registers Contract

Required

Contractor Rep (CR) – Provides Comments

Required

Assessing Official (AO) – Writes CPAR, Reviews Contractor Comments

Required

Reviewing Official (RO) – Resolves Disputes

Required if Disagreement

Contract Data Entry (CDE) – Registers

Contract

Optional

Optional if ConcurrenceAssessing Official Rep (AOR) – Assists AO in

Drafting CPAR

Optional



Focal PointFocal Point

Contract Number Role PlayerN4511202C7000

N4511202C8000

N4511202C9000

Assign Players

Phil Odendron

Steve Jones

Mary Givens

Mark Smith

Maria Lopez

Steve Warner

Eldon Roofer

Mary Givens

Kelly Warner

Maria Lopez

Mary Givens

Doreen Bunny

Maria Lopez

Contract Data Entry

Assessing Official Rep

Assessing Official

Contractor Rep

Reviewing Official



Assessing Official

Contractor Rep

Reviewing Official

Assessing Official

Contractor Rep

Reviewing Official



CPARS WorkflowCPARS Workflow

ContractRegistration

Enter ProposedRatings

Validate ProposedRatings

Review ContractorComments

Reviewing OfficialComments

ContractorComments

Manual:Focal PointContract Data EntryAssessing OfficialAssessing Official Rep

Automated:Focal Point



RequirementsRequirements

Focal Point Only

Auto Register Within 30 Days of Contract Award

Auto Register ONCE per Contract

Must Complete APM Field

Contract Registration (Automated)




Register Within 30 Days of Contract Award

Register ONCE per Contract

Enter Basic Contract Information

Must Complete Mandatory Fields

Contract Registration (Manual)

Note: Be sure to review

local policy guidance regarding

assignment of the Contract Registration

function.



ICONSICONS

Navigation Tab Buttons

Mandatory Entry

Calendar Button Lookup Button

Help Button

Contract Registration (Manual)









ContractorComments

Assessing Official Rep(s) Assessing Official



Assessing Official Rep ExamplesAssessing Official Rep Examples

Technical Experts

Contract Specialists

Contracting Officer

Contracting Officer’s Representative

Task / Order Monitor

Enter Proposed Ratings

GovernmentOnly!



Assessing Official ExamplesAssessing Official Examples

Program Manager or Equivalent IPT Lead Performance Evaluator Quality Assurance Evaluator Requirements Indicator Contracting Officer’s Representative Technical Team Requirements Personnel Product / Service End User Contracting Officer


The Person Responsible for the Execution of the Program, Project, Order

Note: Be sure to review local policy guidance regarding assignment of the Assessing Official

function.

GovernmentOnly!




Develop a Comprehensive Contract Effort Description (Block 17)

Enter Proposed Ratings & Narratives (Blocks 18 & 20)– 16,000 Character Limit– Current Ratings– Changes from Past Ratings– Trends




Complete Effort Description Identifying: – Key Technologies– Components– Subsystem Requirements– Complexity of Contract– Acronyms– Technical Terms

Critical to Future Performance Risk Assessment Groups and Source Selection Authorities

Note Scope Changes Since Prior Assessment

Contract Effort DescriptionContract Effort Description



Sample Contract Effort DescriptionSample Contract Effort Description

Contract Effort Description

Sufficient? Yes or No

The contractor is to provide development, initial outfitting and maintenance support to MAWS for the

AN/XYZ-100 Weapons System incorporating oculomotor birefringence.




NOT SufficientNOT Sufficient

Contract Effort Description

Missing:– Detail of Scope– Complexity of Contract– Key Technologies– Subcontracting Effort– Definitions of Acronyms and Technical Terms

The contractor is to provide development, initial outfitting and maintenance support to MAWS for the AN/XYZ-100

Weapons System incorporating oculomotor birefringence.




SufficientSufficient Contract Effort Description

The contractor is to provide development and testing of the AN/XYZ-100 Weapons System incorporating oculomotor birefringence, a technology in which eye motion controls display position for optimum operator response time. This includes development of assessment applications and analysis methods to evaluate system parameters and enhancements. Subcontractor will provide refracting lenses and optics. After successful testing as determined by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), contractor will provide initial outfitting of Marine Air Wings (MAWS). Contractor will provide continued maintenance support via warranted repair of systems and subassemblies through the contract ending date.



Ratings & NarrativesRatings & Narratives

Ratings and Narrativesare the most important

part of the CPAR!



Elements AssessedElements Assessed

Systems / Ship Repair & Overhaul

Technical (Quality of Product)– Product Performance– System Engineering– Software Engineering– Logistics Support/ Sustainment– Product Assurance– Other Technical Performance

Schedule

Cost Control



Elements Assessed Elements Assessed

Systems / Ship Repair & Overhaul

Management– Management Responsiveness– Subcontract Management

Includes Small Business Subcontracting Goal Accomplishment

– Program Management & Other Management

Other Areas



Elements AssessedElements Assessed

Services / Information Technology / Operations Support

Quality of Product or Service

Schedule

Cost Control

Business RelationsIncludes Small Business Subcontracting Goal Accomplishment

Management of Key Personnel




Rating Definitions

Rating Contract Requirements Problems Corrective

Actions

Dark Blue(Exceptional)

Exceeds Many – Gov’t Benefit Few Minor Highly Effective

Purple (Very Good)

Exceeds Some – Gov’t Benefit Some Minor Effective

Green (Satisfactory) Meets All Some Minor Satisfactory

Yellow (Marginal)

Does Not Meet Some

Serious: Recovery Still

Possible

Marginally Effective; Not Fully

Implemented

Red (Unsatisfactory)

Does Not Meet Most

Serious: Recovery Not

LikelyIneffective



Ratings & Narratives Ratings & Narratives

Narrative Guidelines

Address Contractor Performance– Recent – Relevant

Collect Input From Entire Program / Project Team

Provide Reader a Complete Understanding of the Contractor’s Performance

Must Be:-Accurate-Fair-Comprehensive





Narrative Required for Each Rated Element

Address– Rating Changes From Prior Reports– Benefit / Impact to Government

Recognize– Risk Inherent in Effort– Government’s Role in Contractor’s Inability to Meet

Requirements

Indicate Major / Minor Strengths / Weaknesses





Consistent with – Program Metrics– Ratings– Contract Objectives

Document Problems & Solutions

Contain Non-Personal & Objective Statements

Program Reviews

Earned Value Management (EVM) Data

Award Fees/Incentives

Certificates of Service

Cost Performance Reports

Quality Reviews/Evals



Sample NarrativesSample Narratives

Elements Assessed Elements Assessed

Cost Control

Subcontract Management

Software Engineering



Sample NarrativeSample Narrative

Element Assessed: Cost ControlElement Assessed: Cost Control


Cost Control - Rating: Green(Satisfactory)No cost control problems have been noted.





Cost Control - Rating: Green (Satisfactory)No cost control problems have been noted.

Missing:– Detail to Support Rating– Detail to Tell Entire Story– Supporting Documentation / Metrics




SufficientSufficient Cost Control - Rating: Green (Satisfactory)

The contractor has adequately maintained cost controls on the AN/XYZ-100 Weapons System program during this reporting period. Despite delays caused by the subcontractor, aggressive management of materials and personnel has kept the project at or near budget projections. Monthly reports and quarterly inspections indicate 5% cost overruns for unit assembly during the first half of the reporting period. The contractor initiated a project management system which dramatically improved resource allocation to ensure cost controls remain within budget.

Note: Actual narratives should

go into even greater detail!




Element Assessed: Subcontract Mgt. Element Assessed: Subcontract Mgt.


Subcontract Management – Rating:Green (Satisfactory)

In our opinion, the contractor has done an admirable job keeping on track despite continued delays of optics delivery from the subcontractor. Hopefully, the subcontractor can increase production to meet delivery shortfalls.





Subcontract Management – Rating: Green (Satisfactory)

In our opinion, the contractor has done an admirable job keeping on track despite continued delays of optics delivery from the subcontractor. Hopefully, the subcontractor can increase production to meet delivery shortfalls.

Missing:– Detail to Support Rating– Supporting Documentation / Metrics– Impact to Government– Corrective Actions– Additional Issue:

Contains Subjective Phrases



Statements to Avoid


Outside Contract Scope

In Our Opinion

It Appeared

We Believe

We Hope

We Were Not Happy

We Did Not Like

We Think




SufficientSufficient Subcontract Management – Rating: Yellow (Marginal)

The contractor has exhibited marginal management of subcontractor operations during this reporting period. This is evidenced by inspections, quarterly program reports, and contractor communications with Government personnel and subcontractor. Specifically, for three consecutive deliveries subcontractor was more than 30 days late. In addition, delivered optics have experienced a 21% failure rate, 16% above established parameters. Delivery delays and quality failures have delayed program development by 6 to 8 months, and have caused a 6 month setback in projected system deployment. Contractor has made repeated complaints to subcontractor regarding delays and is soliciting alternate sources for optics. Also contractor has proposed a receiving inspection process to detect quality deficiencies in delivered optics. However, to date no significant improvement is noted.




Element Assessed: Software EngineeringElement Assessed: Software Engineering

Software Engineering - Rating: Dark Blue (Exceptional)

The contractor has exhibited exceptional software engineering for assessment and analysis of the AN/XYZ-100 Weapons System project. By integrating existing software they developed a set of applications combining supply data, production data, system testing, quality data, and trend analysis, which resulted in a 24% increase in data processing speed according to benchmark testing. Improved metrics and consolidated reporting was directly responsible for elimination of cost overruns experienced in the 1st & 2nd quarters and a net reduction of 7% in reimbursable costs for the reporting period. Minor discrepancies in application compatibility were quickly corrected using a new “Team Programming” system.





SufficientSufficientSoftware Engineering - Rating: Dark Blue (Exceptional)

The contractor has exhibited exceptional software engineering for assessment and analysis of the AN/XYZ-100 Weapons System project. By integrating existing software they developed a set of applications combining supply data, production data, system testing, quality data, and trend analysis, which resulted in a 24% increase in data processing speed according to benchmark testing. Improved metrics and consolidated reporting was directly responsible for elimination of cost overruns experienced in the 1st & 2nd quarters and a net reduction of 7% in reimbursable costs for the reporting period. Minor discrepancies in application compatibility were quickly corrected using a new “Team Programming” system.

Contains:– Detail to Support Rating– Benefit to Government

–Corrective Actions– Objective Language





Due to Nature of Work (Low Risk Activities) May be Difficult to Obtain Rating Above Satisfactory / Green

Note this Fact in the CPAR Narrative




Quality of Product or Service - Rating: Green (Satisfactory)

This contract is for the collection of refuse at XXX Air Force Base located near Anytown, USA. As part of its services, Contractor XXX is required to pick up 87 dumpsters across an approximate 30 square mile area, 12 hazardous waste containers, and 7 bio-hazardous waste material containers at the Medical Clinic located at the base. Given the nature of the services performed for this contract and the schedule for refuse collection, it would be difficult to obtain above a Satisfactory rating for performance on this contract. During this evaluation period, Contractor XXX met all of its refuse collection requirements on time as stated in the contract. Further Contractor XXX ensured that all of the tops of the dumpsters were closed after dumping to ensure that no foreign object debris (FOD) entered the flight line area despite the locale being in an area prone to high winds. There were no incidents of improper storage or disposal of the hazardous waste or bio-hazardous waste material during this reporting period. Therefore, the rating of Satisfactory indicates performance within the requirements of the contract and that there were no problems encountered during this reporting period with Contractor XXX.



Narrative HintsNarrative Hints

Communication– Throughout the Performance Period– With Contractor and Within Government

Documentation– Record Significant Metrics / Events

Throughout the Performance Period– “The CPAR Should Write Itself”

Create a Working CPAR– Draft On-Line– Draft Off-Line Document

Use Copy and Paste




Bottom Line:Accurate and Complete

CPARs Help Ensure Better Quality Products & Services!









ContractorComments

Assessing Official Rep(s) Assessing Official



If the Assessing Official initiates a CPAR, the system WILL NOT allow the Assessing Official Representative to add ratings or narrative to that

CPAR. Off-line planning is required to ensure that the CPARS workflow operates smoothly.


WorkflowNote




Review Admin Info (Blocks 1 – 17)– Enter “Report Type” (Block 2) &

Period of Performance (Block 3)

Input Ratings & Narratives (Blocks 18 & 20)– 16,000 Character Limit (approximately 3 pages)

Save and Pass to Another AOR (if applicable)

Send to Assessing Official




Indicates Item has been Rated


ICONSICONS


Mandatory Entry


Help Button









ContractorComments

Assessing Official




Review Admin Info (Blocks 1 – 17)

Validate Ratings & Narratives (Blocks 18 & 20)– Modify Ratings & Narratives (if necessary)– Return to AOR for Corrections– 16,000 Character Limit (approximately 3 pages)

Name and Title (Block 21)

Send to Contractor Rep

Validate Proposed Ratings

Perform Quality Review Prior to Sending




ICONSICONS


Mandatory Entry


Help Button

Validate Proposed Ratings









ContractorComments

Contractor Rep



30 Days to Respond – System Generated Weekly Email Notifications

7 Days to Request Meeting to Discuss CPAR

Review Admin Info (Blocks 1-17) , Ratings and Narratives

Provide Clear and Concise Responses (Block 22)– 16,000 Character Limit (approximately 3 pages)

Provide Concurrence / Non-Concurrence, Name & Title (Block 23)

Send to Assessing Official


Contractor Comments



Protect the CPAR– Handle as “Source Selection Information”

Prohibited Use– Advertising– Promotional Material– Pre-Award Surveys– Production Readiness Reviews

Advise Contractor to– Acknowledge Receipt– Comment– Respond Within 30 Days

Contractor GuidanceContractor Guidance

Contractor Comments




ICONSICONS


Mandatory Entry Help Button

Contractor Comments









ContractorComments

Assessing Official




Review Contractor Comments

Close CPAR

Modify CPAR

Send to Reviewing Official (if applicable)




If the Contractor fails to respond to the CPAR within 30 days, the Assessing Official has the option to pull back the CPAR and continue the process by sending it to the Reviewing Official.


WorkflowNote




ICONSICONS


Mandatory Entry


Help Button










ContractorComments

Reviewing Official



Required

If the CPAR is Contentious

If the Contractor Does Not Respond

If Local Policy Mandates

Reviewing Official Comments

Note: Be sure to review local policy guidance regarding assignment of the Reviewing Official

function.




Review CPAR– Blocks 1-23 (read only format)

Input Comments (Block 24)– Acknowledge Discrepancies Between Government

Ratings / Narratives and Contractor Comments– 16,000 Character Limit (approximately 3 pages)

Name and Title (Block 25)

Close CPAR


GovernmentOnly!




ICONSICONS


Mandatory Entry Help Button










ContractorComments

PPIRS



Automatic Email NoticesAutomatic Email Notices

Each Step of CPARS Workflow

System Reminders– CPAR Due (Assessing Official, Focal Point)

30 Days Prior On Time

– CPAR Overdue (Assessing Official, Focal Point)– Contractor Comments Due (Assessing Official,

Contractor)– Contractor Comments Overdue/Review Period

Expired (Assessing Official) – CPAR Complete (Contractor)



Contractor Corporate Senior Management Representative -

CEO, President, CFO

Access Granted by DUNS Number

Senior Command Official -

Higher Level for Monitoring

Command Point of Contact -

CPARS Management Board Member

Additional RolesAdditional Roles

ViewRated

CPARS

UserList

ActivityLog



CPARS Management Board (CMB)CPARS Management Board (CMB)

Controls System Configuration & Policy

Evaluates User Suggested Changes & Enhancements

Minutes Posted to CPARS Website



Keep Qualifiers / Parameters Simple

Use Reports to Monitor Process– CPAR Status– Contract Status

User List

Activity Log

Spreadsheet

ReportsReports



Change User Information– Update User Profile/Email– Required Annually

Change User Preferences– Select or De-Select Optional Email Notifications

Change Login Password– Forgot Password Button– May be Reset by Focal Point or CPARS Help Desk– Must be Modified Every 60 Days

User Profile MenuUser Profile Menu

Critical to CPARSAutomated Workflow



THE CLOCK IS TICKING!

System Time-Out & Auto Save

After 20 Minutes of Inactivity

System Time-OutSystem Time-Out



Prior to Performance PeriodPrior to Performance Period Be Up Front

– Identify Expectations– Discuss Areas to be Evaluated

Provide CPARS Guides to Contractors and Evaluators– During Post-Award Conference– Prior to Annual Evaluation

Leave Yourself Flexibility

Helpful HintsHelpful Hints

Don’t wait until the annual evaluation tomake your contractor aware of performance!



Communicate with Contractor– Provide Feedback

Document Performance Regularly – Status Reports – Earned Value Management Data– Monthly Certificates of Service– Award Fee Evaluations– Program Reviews– Earned Contract Incentives

During Performance PeriodDuring Performance Period




Provide Contractor Draft Assessment

Contractor May Provide Self Assessment

Take Time to Acknowledge Contractor Concerns– Face to Face Meetings– Extend 30 Day Comment Period if Necessary

Document File if no Contractor Comments Received– Transmittal Letter Email– Phone Conversation– Efforts to Contact Contractor

End of Performance PeriodEnd of Performance Period




Characteristics of a Characteristics of a Lose-LoseLose-Lose CPAR CPAR Use as a “Big Stick”

Solicit Out of Scope Work

Establish a Negotiation Position

Rate Government Program Manager

“Nobody Grades as Hard as I Do”

Document Performance Outside of Contract




Characteristics of a Characteristics of a Win-WinWin-Win CPAR CPAR

Fair Relevant Comprehensive Repeatable Process Timely Accurate Consistent




Facilitates Communication / Cooperation Between Government and Industry

Provides Past & Current Performance Information- Contains Ratings & Narrative by Government - Contains Narrative by Industry

Motivates Improved Performance

Used in Source Selection to Support Best Value Decisions - Information Retrieved from PPIRS

CPARS SummaryCPARS Summary



PPIRSPPIRS

www.ppirs.govwww.ppirs.gov



Federal Repository for Completed Assessments

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

Architect – Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS)

Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Past Performance Data Base (PPDB)

National Institute of Health (NIH) Contractor Performance System (CPS)

PPIRSPPIRS




AccessAccess Government

– Go to www.ppirs.gov and Create an Account– Provide Justification for Access– Join Your “Group”

Contractor – Controlled through Central Contractor Registration (CCR)

Process– Identify a Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN)

Visit to www.ccr.gov for More Information

– DUNS and MPIN Become User ID and Password for PPIRS– View Completed Evaluations at www.ppirs.gov

Select “PPIRS-RC Logon”

PPIRSPPIRS


http://www.ppirs.gov/

http://www.ccr.gov/


www.cpars.navy.milwww.cpars.navy.milwww.ppirs.govwww.ppirs.gov

PPIRSPPIRS



PPI & Source SelectionsPPI & Source Selections

Solicitation Should Address– Relevance (PPI for Similar Work)– Areas of Consideration (i.e., Technical, Management,

Schedule, etc.)– Timeframe (Consider Last 3 Years)– Sources– Relative Importance

PPIRS– Contains Contractor Comments

No Need to Re-Address Adverse PPI

– Rely if Believe PPI is Valid– Contractor Ensures Accuracy

Golden Rule: Evaluate PPI

IAW Solicitation!




Forwarding Suggestions or ConcernsForwarding Suggestions or Concerns

“Feedback” in CPARS

Contact [email protected]

Contact Doreen Powell, CPARS PM

[email protected]

Contact your CMB Representative

All Suggestions will be considered!



Additional InformationAdditional Information

Help Desk (Mon-Fri 6:30am- 4:30pm EST) DSN: 684-1712 ext 486

Commercial: 603-431-9460 ext 486

Email: [email protected]

CPARS Web Site: (www.cpars.navy.mil)– Feedback– FAQ– Policy Guides– Quality Checklist– User Manual– Training Information



Why Evaluate Contractor Performance?Why Evaluate Contractor Performance?

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

Focal Point Focal Point SessionSession



Focal Point Session Agenda Focal Point Session Agenda

Functions Overview

Automatic Contract Registration

User Access Matrix

Access Assignment

Modifying Access

Account Maintenance

Access Transfers

Alternate Focal Points



Gov’t PMContracting

ContractorRepresentative

Senior Gov’tManagement

Focal Point

Focal Point Functions OverviewFocal Point Functions Overview

CPARSContract #/User/Access Level

Status Report RequestContract Registration

User ID CPAR Status

User Account InfoProcess MonitoringPolicy GuidanceTraining




Focal Point Only

Auto Register Within 30 Days of Contract Award

Auto Register ONCE per Contract

Must Complete APM Field




Contracts Auto Registered With No Users Assigned

Users Assigned to Contract Which Has Not Been Registered


Weekly Email NotificationsWeekly Email Notifications

Helpful Hint: Auto register contracts and assign users concurrently.



User Access MatrixUser Access Matrix

Determine Process Participants– Names– Email Addresses

Minimum Required Roles– Assessing Official– Contractor Representative– Reviewing Official (If Contentious)

Optional Roles– Contract Data Entry (If Manual Registration)– Assessing Official Representative– Reviewing Official (If Not Contentious)

Helpful Hint:Ask Contracting

Office or Requiring Office to provide

User Access Matrix.



User Access MatrixUser Access Matrix

Contract Number Role PlayerN4511202C7000

N4511202C8000

N4511202C9000

Assign Players

Phil Odendron

Steve Jones

Mary Givens

Mark Smith

Maria Lopez

Steve Warner

Eldon Roofer

Mary Givens

Kelly Warner

Maria Lopez

Mary Givens

Doreen Bunny

Maria Lopez

Contract Data Entry


Assessing Official

Contractor Rep

Reviewing Official



Assessing Official

Contractor Rep

Reviewing Official

Assessing Official

Contractor Rep

Reviewing Official



Access AssignmentAccess Assignment

Access Authorization– Create New User Access

Enter Contract(s)

Select User Role

Enter User Name– Enter New User Name & Email Address– Select Existing User

Create User Access Matrix

Automatic Email Notifies Users of Access Assignment– User ID– Use Forgot Password Function if New User– Synopsis of User Role

Helpful Hint: If user(s) need access to multiple contracts,

give access to all the contracts at the same time.



Modifying AccessModifying Access

Access Authorization– Modify Existing User Access

Modify by Contract– List of All Users with Access to Specific Contract– Change User’s Role for Specific Contract– Remove User From Contract– Delete User

Modify by User– List of All User’s Contracts– Change User’s Role on Contract(s)– Remove User From Contract(s)– Delete User

Remove AccessCan No Longer Access Specific Contract; User

Account Still Exists

Delete User Can No Longer Access

Any Contracts; User Account No Longer

Exists



Account MaintenanceAccount Maintenance

Access Authorization– Modify Existing User Access

Modify by User

Change User Profile– Name, Organization, Title– Email Address– Phone Numbers

Reset Password– New Temporary Password

Update User’s Signature Block

Helpful Hint:Forgot Password Button is Preferred Way of Resetting

Passwords



Access TransfersAccess Transfers

Access Authorization– Transfer User Access to Another User

Transfer From User– Retain Account Following Transfer– Delete Account Following Transfer

Transfer Contracts– Specific Contract– All Contracts

Transfer To– New User– Existing User

User will still access CPARS, but will use different contracts.

Retain Account

User will no longer access CPARS.

Delete Account

Helpful Hint: Access transfers are a quick way to reassign a large number of contracts when a user changes jobs or retires.



Alternate Focal PointsAlternate Focal Points

Access Authorization– Assign Alternate Focal Point– Only Focal Point May Assign Alternates

(i.e., Alternate Cannot Have Alternates)

Assign Up To Three Alternates

Enter User Name– New User– Existing User

Alternate Focal Point– Assign– Delete– Reset Password

Helpful Hint: If you have a lot of users and contracts to manage, you can have a

full time alternate(s).



Additional InformationAdditional Information

Help Desk (Mon-Fri 6:30am- 4:30pm EST) DSN: 684-1712 ext 486

Commercial: 603-431-9460 ext 486

Email: [email protected]

CPARS Web Site: (www.cpars.navy.mil)– Feedback– FAQ– Policy Guides– Quality Checklist– User Manual– Training Information

cpars seminar (october 2006)

Documents