(a)(1) Agencies shall assign responsibility and management accountability for the completeness of past performance submissions. Agency procedures for the past performance evaluation system shall--
(1) Agencies shall assign responsibility and management accountability for the completeness of past performance submissions. Agency procedures for the past performance evaluation system shall--
(i) Generally provide for input to the evaluations from the technical office, contracting office, program management office and, where appropriate, quality assurance and end users of the product or service;
(ii) Identify and assign past performance evaluation roles and responsibilities to those individuals responsible for preparing and reviewing interim evaluations, if prepared, and final evaluations (e.g., contracting officers, contracting officer representatives, project managers, and program managers). Those individuals identified may obtain information for the evaluation of performance from the program office, administrative contracting office, audit office, end users of the product or service, and any other technical or business advisor, as appropriate; and
(iii) Address management controls and appropriate management reviews of past performance evaluations, to include accountability for documenting past performance on PPIRS.
(2) If agency procedures do not specify the individuals responsible for past performance evaluation duties, the contracting officer is responsible for this function.
(3) Interim evaluations may be prepared as required, in accordance with agency procedures.
(b)(1) The evaluation should include a clear, non-technical description of the principal purpose of the contract or order. The evaluation should reflect how the contractor performed. The evaluation should include clear relevant information that accurately depicts the contractor's performance, and be based on objective facts supported by program and contract or order performance data. The evaluations should be tailored to the contract type, size, content, and complexity of the contractual requirements.
(1) The evaluation should include a clear, non-technical description of the principal purpose of the contract or order. The evaluation should reflect how the contractor performed. The evaluation should include clear relevant information that accurately depicts the contractor's performance, and be based on objective facts supported by program and contract or order performance data. The evaluations should be tailored to the contract type, size, content, and complexity of the contractual requirements.
(2) Evaluation factors for each assessment shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(i) Technical (quality of product or service).
(ii) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment arrangements).
(iii) Schedule/timeliness.
(iv) Management or business relations.
(v) Small business subcontracting (as applicable, see Table 42-2).
(vi) Other (as applicable) (e.g., late or nonpayment to subcontractors, trafficking violations, tax delinquency, failure to report in accordance with contract terms and conditions, defective cost or pricing data, terminations, suspension and debarments).
(3) Evaluation factors may include subfactors.
(4) Each factor and subfactor used shall be evaluated and a supporting narrative provided. Each evaluation factor, as listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be rated in accordance with a five scale rating system (i.e., exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory). The ratings and narratives must reflect the definitions in the tables 42-1 or 42-2 of this section.
(c)(1) When the contract provides for incentive fees, the incentive-fee contract performance evaluation shall be entered into CPARS.
(1) When the contract provides for incentive fees, the incentive-fee contract performance evaluation shall be entered into CPARS.
(2) When the contract provides for award fee, the award fee-contract performance adjectival rating as described in 16.401(e)(3) shall be entered into CPARS.
(d) Agency evaluations of contractor performance, including both negative and positive evaluations, prepared under this subpart shall be provided to the contractor as soon as practicable after completion of the evaluation. The contractor will receive a CPARS-system generated notification when an evaluation is ready for comment. Contractors shall be afforded up to 14 calendar days from the date of notification of availability of the past performance evaluation to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional information. Agencies shall provide for review at a level above the contracting officer to consider disagreements between the parties regarding the evaluation. The ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation is a decision of the contracting agency. Copies of the evaluation, contractor response, and review comments, if any, shall be retained as part of the evaluation. These evaluations may be used to support future award decisions, and should therefore be marked ``Source Selection Information''. Evaluation of Federal Prison Industries (FPI) performance may be used to support a waiver request (see 8.604) when FPI is a mandatory source in accordance with subpart 8.6. The completed evaluation shall not be released to other than Government personnel and the contractor whose performance is being evaluated during the period the information may be used to provide source selection information. Disclosure of such information could cause harm both to the commercial interest of the Government and to the competitive position of the contractor being evaluated as well as impede the efficiency of Government operations. Evaluations used in determining award or incentive fee payments may also be used to satisfy the requirements of this subpart. A copy of the annual or final past performance evaluation shall be provided to the contractor as soon as it is finalized.
(e) Agencies shall require frequent evaluation (e.g., monthly, quarterly) of agency compliance with the reporting requirements in 42.1502, so agencies can readily identify delinquent past performance reports and monitor their reports for quality control.
(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit all past performance evaluations electronically in the CPARS at http://www.cpars.gov. These evaluations, including any contractor-submitted information (with indication whether agency review is pending), are automatically transmitted to PPIRS at http://www.ppirs.gov not later than 14 days after the date on which the contractor is notified of the evaluation's availability for comment. The Government shall update PPIRS with any contractor comments provided after 14 days, as well as any subsequent agency review of comments received. Past performance evaluations for classified contracts and special access programs shall not be reported in CPARS, but will be reported as stated in this subpart and in accordance with agency procedures. Agencies shall ensure that appropriate management and technical controls are in place to ensure that only authorized personnel have access to the data and the information safeguarded in accordance with 42.1503(d).
(g) Agencies shall use the past performance information in PPIRS that is within three years (six for construction and architect-engineer contracts) of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract or order, and information contained in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), e.g., terminations for default or cause.
(h) Other contractor performance information. (1) Agencies shall ensure information is accurately reported in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) module of CPARS within 3 calendar days after a contracting officer--
(1) Agencies shall ensure information is accurately reported in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) module of CPARS within 3 calendar days after a contracting officer--
(i) Issues a final determination that a contractor has submitted defective cost or pricing data;
(ii) Makes a subsequent change to the final determination concerning defective cost or pricing data pursuant to 15.407-1(d);
(iii) Issues a final termination for cause or default notice;
(iv) Makes a subsequent withdrawal or a conversion of a termination for default to a termination for convenience; or
(v) Receives a final determination after an administrative proceeding, in accordance with 22.1704(d)(1), that substantiates an allegation of a violation of the trafficking in persons prohibitions in 22.1703(a) and 52.222-50(b).
(2) The information to be posted in accordance with this paragraph (h) is information relating to contractor performance, but does not constitute a ``past performance review,'' which would be exempted from public availability in accordance with section 3010 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-212). Therefore, all such information posted in FAPIIS will be publicly available, unless covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (see 9.105-2(b)(2)).
(3) Agencies shall establish CPARS focal points who will register users to report data into the FAPIIS module of CPARS (available at http://www.cpars.gov/, then select FAPIIS).
(4) With regard to information that may be covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures at 9.105-2(b)(2)(iv).
Table 42-1--Evaluation Ratings Definitions----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Exceptional.............................. Performance meets contractual To justify an Exceptional
requirements and exceeds many rating, identify multiple
to the Government's benefit. significant events and state
The contractual performance of how they were of benefit to
the element or sub-element the Government. A singular
being evaluated was benefit, however, could be of
accomplished with few minor such magnitude that it alone
problems for which corrective constitutes an Exceptional
actions taken by the contractor rating. Also, there should
were highly effective. have been NO significant
weaknesses identified.(b) Very Good................................ Performance meets contractual To justify a Very Good rating,
requirements and exceeds some identify a significant event
to the Government's benefit. and state how it was a benefit
The contractual performance of to the Government. There
the element or sub-element should have been no
being evaluated was significant weaknesses
accomplished with some minor identified.
problems for which corrective
actions taken by the contractor
were effective.(c) Satisfactory............................. Performance meets contractual To justify a Satisfactory
requirements. The contractual rating, there should have been
performance of the element or only minor problems, or major
sub-element contains some minor problems the contractor
problems for which corrective recovered from without impact
actions taken by the contractor to the contract/order. There
appear or were satisfactory. should have been NO
significant weaknesses
identified. A fundamental
principle of assigning ratings
is that contractors will not
be evaluated with a rating
lower than Satisfactory solely
for not performing beyond the
requirements of the contract/
order.
(d) Marginal................................. Performance does not meet some To justify Marginal
contractual requirements. The performance, identify a
contractual performance of the significant event in each
element or sub-element being category that the contractor
evaluated reflects a serious had trouble overcoming and
problem for which the state how it impacted the
contractor has not yet Government. A Marginal rating
identified corrective actions. should be supported by
The contractor's proposed referencing the management
actions appear only marginally tool that notified the
effective or were not fully contractor of the contractual
implemented. deficiency (e.g., management,
quality, safety, or
environmental deficiency
report or letter).(e) Unsatisfactory........................... Performance does not meet most To justify an Unsatisfactory
contractual requirements and rating, identify multiple
recovery is not likely in a significant events in each
timely manner. The contractual category that the contractor
performance of the element or had trouble overcoming and
sub-element contains a serious state how it impacted the
problem(s) for which the Government. A singular
contractor's corrective actions problem, however, could be of
appear or were ineffective. such serious magnitude that it
alone constitutes an
unsatisfactory rating. An
Unsatisfactory rating should
be supported by referencing
the management tools used to
notify the contractor of the
contractual deficiencies
(e.g., management, quality,
safety, or environmental
deficiency reports, or
letters).----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving ( + ) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to
change the evaluation status.Note 2: N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular area for
evaluation.
Table 42-2--Evaluation Ratings Definitions
[For the Small Business Subcontracting Evaluation Factor, when 52.219-9 is used]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Exceptional.............................. Exceeded all statutory goals or To justify an Exceptional
goals as negotiated. Had rating, identify multiple
exceptional success with significant events and state
initiatives to assist, promote, how they were a benefit to
and utilize small business small business utilization. A
(SB), small disadvantaged singular benefit, however,
business (SDB), women-owned could be of such magnitude
small business (WOSB), HUBZone that it constitutes an
small business, veteran-owned Exceptional rating. Small
small business (VOSB) and businesses should be given
service disabled veteran owned meaningful and innovative work
small business (SDVOSB). directly related to the
Complied with FAR 52.219-8, contract, and opportunities
Utilization of Small Business should not be limited to
Concerns. Exceeded any other indirect work such as cleaning
small business participation offices, supplies,
requirements incorporated in landscaping, etc. Also, there
the contract/order, including should have been no
the use of small businesses in significant weaknesses
mission critical aspects of the identified.
program. Went above and beyond
the required elements of the
subcontracting plan and other
small business requirements of
the contract/order. Completed
and submitted Individual
Subcontract Reports and/or
Summary Subcontract Reports in
an accurate and timely manner.
(b) Very Good................................ Met all of the statutory goals To justify a Very Good rating,
or goals as negotiated. Had identify a significant event
significant success with and state how it was a benefit
initiatives to assist, promote to small business utilization.
and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, Small businesses should be
HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB. given meaningful and
Complied with FAR 52.219-8, innovative opportunities to
Utilization of Small Business participate as subcontractors
Concerns. Met or exceeded any for work directly related to
other small business the contract, and
participation requirements opportunities should not be
incorporated in the contract/ limited to indirect work such
order, including the use of as cleaning offices, supplies,
small businesses in mission landscaping, etc. There should
critical aspects of the be no significant weaknesses
program. Endeavored to go above identified.
and beyond the required
elements of the subcontracting
plan. Completed and submitted
Individual Subcontract Reports
and/or Summary Subcontract
Reports in an accurate and
timely manner.(c) Satisfactory............................. Demonstrated a good faith effort To justify a Satisfactory
to meet all of the negotiated rating, there should have been
subcontracting goals in the only minor problems, or major
various socio-economic problems the contractor has
categories for the current addressed or taken corrective
period. Complied with FAR action. There should have been
52.219-8, Utilization of Small no significant weaknesses
Business Concerns. Met any identified. A fundamental
other small business principle of assigning ratings
participation requirements is that contractors will not
included in the contract/order. be assessed a rating lower
Fulfilled the requirements of than Satisfactory solely for
the subcontracting plan not performing beyond the
included in the contract/order. requirements of the contract/
Completed and submitted order.
Individual Subcontract Reports
and/or Summary Subcontract
Reports in an accurate and
timely manner.(d) Marginal................................. Deficient in meeting key To justify Marginal
subcontracting plan elements. performance, identify a
Deficient in complying with FAR significant event that the
52.219-8, Utilization of Small contractor had trouble
Business Concerns, and any overcoming and how it impacted
other small business small business utilization. A
participation requirements in Marginal rating should be
the contract/order. Did not supported by referencing the
submit Individual Subcontract actions taken by the
Reports and/or Summary government that notified the
Subcontract Reports in an contractor of the contractual
accurate or timely manner. deficiency.
Failed to satisfy one or more
requirements of a corrective
action plan currently in place;
however, does show an interest
in bringing performance to a
satisfactory level and has
demonstrated a commitment to
apply the necessary resources
to do so. Required a corrective
action plan.(e) Unsatisfactory........................... Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 To justify an Unsatisfactory
and 52.219-9, and any other rating, identify multiple
small business participation significant events that the
requirements in the contract/ contractor had trouble
order. Did not submit overcoming and state how it
Individual Subcontract Reports impacted small business
and/or Summary Subcontract utilization. A singular
Reports in an accurate or problem, however, could be of
timely manner. Showed little such serious magnitude that it
interest in bringing alone constitutes an
performance to a satisfactory Unsatisfactory rating. An
level or is generally Unsatisfactory rating should
uncooperative. Required a be supported by referencing
corrective action plan. the actions taken by the
government to notify the
contractor of the
deficiencies. When an
Unsatisfactory rating is
justified, the contracting
officer must consider whether
the contractor made a good
faith effort to comply with
the requirements of the
subcontracting plan required
by FAR 52.219-9 and follow the
procedures outlined in FAR
52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-
Subcontracting Plan.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving ( + ) or worsening (-) trend insufficient to
change evaluation status.
Note 2: Generally, zero percent is not a goal unless the contracting officer determined when negotiating the
subcontracting plan that no subcontracting opportunities exist in a particular socio-economic category. In
such cases, the contractor shall be considered to have met the goal for any socio-economic category where the
goal negotiated in the plan was zero. [78 FR 46788, Aug. 1, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 31201, May 30, 2014; 80 FR 4989, Jan. 29, 2015]
Subpart 42.16_Small Business Contract Administration