Alliant Best Practices
COLLECTING AND USING CURRENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
A BEST PRACTICE
Recording contractor current performance information periodically during contract performance and discussing the results with contractors is a powerful motivator for contractors to maintain high quality performance or improve inadequate performance before the next reporting cycle. Current performance assessment is a basic "best practice" for good contract administration, and is one of the most important tools available for ensuring good contractor performance. We strongly emphasize interim assessments as part of good contract management. If the performance period exceeds 18 months, then the Contracting Officer should conduct interim assessments at least every 12 months.
Interim assessments provide essential feedback to contractors on their performance. They provide Contracting Officers an opportunity to give contractors performing well a "pat on the back" and encouragement to keep up the good work. Interim assessments give contractors experiencing problems the opportunity to correct problems before they jeopardize contract completion. Most agency’s contract administration practices dictate that interim assessments be prepared at least every twelve months for contracts.
All rating systems should track four basic assessment elements -- cost, schedule, technical performance (quality of product or service) and business relations including customer satisfaction, and use five basic ratings exceptional (5), very good (4), satisfactory (3), marginal (2), and unsatisfactory (1) as discussed below. This enhances interagency sharing of past performance information.
The ratings given by the government should reflect how well the contractor met the cost, schedule and performance requirements of the contract and the business relationship. A critical aspect of the assessment rating system described below is the second sentence of each rating that recognizes the contractor's resourcefulness in overcoming challenges that arise in the context of contract performance. The government is looking for overall results, not problem free management of the contract.
Exceptional (5). Performance meets contract requirements and significantly exceeds contract requirements to the government's benefit. For example, the contractor implemented innovative or business process reengineering techniques, which resulted in added value to the government. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
Very Good (4). Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
Satisfactory (3). Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which proposed corrective actions taken by the contractor appear satisfactory, or completed corrective actions were satisfactory.
Marginal (2). Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has submitted minimal corrective actions, if any. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.
Unsatisfactory (1). Performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely or cost effective manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.
FOR THE GSA OCO - If you require access to the CPS/PPIRS, email your request here.
Last Reviewed 4/28/2009