APG_S3CoE_Past_Performance_Symposium_SummaryQA27June18.pdf

ACC-APG S3CoE Past Performance Evaluation Information Symposium 27 June 2018

ACC-APG S3CoE Past Performance Evaluation Information Symposium on 27 June 2018 Key Information Summary

There were 40 Industry registrants; 24 Industry partners and 8 Government partners attended for a total of 32 participants. We started at 9:00 am and ended at 11:00 am.

The S3CoE welcomed the attendees, outlined the agenda, provided the ground rules and fundamental principles, stated the objectives, provided an update on the outstanding action items from the 5 March 2018 symposium and discussed the briefing slides as attached.

The four (4) panel members consisted of 3 highly experienced ACC APG Contracting Officers and one (1) AMC Attorney.

There were questions asked during the presentation of the briefing slides and during the panel discussions; the summarized questions and responses during the symposium are listed below.

1. Industry Question: How important is presenting statistics on one’s past performance during the evaluation?

Government response: Past performance details, terminations unforeseen circumstances showing how you overcome problems is important.

2. Industry Question: There is a limit on the number of citations one can include. If we don’t include a program but the program is evaluated from other sources would we still be given a chance to respond?

Government response: If information found was adverse we would have to go back out and confirm.

3. Industry Question: Is it a good idea to address corrective actions taken within page constraints?

Government response: Yes it is a good idea to address major points but if you go into discussions there may be a second chance to provide further information.

4. Industry Question: What type of format for past performance proposal relevance is best for contractors to submit?

Government response: There is not a working format a relevancy matrix would be beneficial.

5. Industry Question: Would a relevancy matrix be used for sub elements?

Government response: It depends on the contract they are not all set up the same way.

6. Industry Question: With page constraints we typically roll up to a higher level. Should key words be bolded?

Government response: Bolding can be used but there is no set way. A matrix can roll up information and save you space so you can try to hit all bold points. A graph or table can also provide a good foundation.

7. Industry Question: Is there a point to not having a past performance citations cap?

Government response: The past performance limit is generally 3 to 5 there do not want all references to past performance. The references should be recent and relevant.

8. Industry Question: Recency, usually we see 3 years has the government seen 5 years?

Government response: The government has gone back and seen 10 years. It depends on the program;

the more complex Government may want to go back beyond 5 years less complex and or commercial may want to limit based on market availability.

9. Industry Question: Is 5 years happening ACC-Wide?

Government response: Government has seen in Div C. You can go back 5 years if you think it will benefit you. This is the kind of input the government likes. It depends on the type of work and complexity.

10. Industry Question: Do teams (subcontractors) make a difference if past performance is by team?

Example if team ABC is heavily technical when the prime company is mostly managerial.

Government response: It is almost a catch 22 when recency doesn’t break down how teams are performing. We can’t make decisions on subs doing most of the work. The template really says overall so it is not defined. Can it influence “yes” depending on the situation but if in reading relevancy it is not stated as a factor there is subjectivity.

11. Industry Question: In responding to past performance should the prime assume they can include subcontractor performance?

Government response: If major subcontractors are defined up front then include major subcontractors.

Contracting team should have clearly defined past performance. If not clearly defined government recommends asking during the draft RFP Q &A period.

12. Government Question to Audience: Do you like percentages for work to be defined when referring to subcontractors?

Audience answer: We are not always sure of the work share; prefer flexibility when determining work share for prime and subcontractors.

13. Industry Question: How wide of a net is cast to evaluate past performance in databases like CPARS and FAPIIS?

Government response: We evaluate as many resources as possible starting with questionnaires to ensure feedback for the minimum responses are obtained. Government team may look further if questionnaires did not provide enough information (only satisfactory checked off no comments to provide insight to performance).

14. Industry Question: When a prime wants to use a previous effort when they served as a subcontractor how does that work? Can a questionnaire come from a contractor?

Government response: Questionnaires should be coming from the Government. There are times when a Government POC may not have subcontractor visibility to complete a past performance questionnaire.

Government recommends providing sub contract PWS which can help to have Government POC confirm subcontractor work and performance.

15. Industry Question: If a subcontractor wants to use a Past Performance reference do we send it to the prime contractor or the government?

Government response: There is a possibility that the questionnaire could be accepted and filled out by the Prime. Government has not seen from a Prime. Government suggests asking permission from prime to send or sometimes the questionnaire is sent by the prime on the sub-contractor’s behalf.

16. Industry Question: Many times there are page limitations and instructions not to provide information that is not asked for; what should we do in this situation?

Government response: Government recommends pushing the subject during the draft RFP Q&A period;

it is more beneficial to ask than to not ask.

17. Industry Question: What happens if CPARS is not done?

Government response: Contracting may escalate and reach out to other divisions or search other sources to obtain Government feedback.

18. Industry Question: Questionnaires- is there guidance given to technical folks on completing questionnaires?

Government response: Government has not seen direction given to filling out questionnaires. Some Government teams have found that getting away from template can provide better information.

19. Industry Question: Is only evaluating past performance work on an omnibus contract relevant (for example Division E)?

Government response: It depends on the circumstances for example if the work is more specialized. It may be division specific where past performance on the omnibus effort demonstrates immediate capability. Government recommends reaching out to KO and Div E. Chief if there are concerns with this approach. This is an excellent question.

20. Industry Comment: It’s sometimes challenging to provide past performance on broad IDIQ basic contracts when the specified work is not yet determined? The work is determined at the task order level.

21. Industry Question: Is it relevant to evaluate only the most recent CPARS rating (for example in Division E)?

Government response: This is a good question; may not be incorrect. This panel is not from Division E we’re not sure of the rationale if used (paraphrased).

22. Industry Question: If follow up questions are due can we call the KO for an extension or provide an in person or phone responses to questionnaires?

Government response: There can be tight timelines. Contracting officers often try to meet extensions and try not to accept phone or in person past performance references. Legal would advise contracting officers not to take calls from past performance references. Sometimes the questions are not written well to clearly understand what is being requested. Government advises taking the time to make sure the questions make sense. The Government recommends that the easy answers be posted as soon as available while the more complex questions are being answered. The primes are not “dinged” if questionnaires are not returned on time by Government references which is why the Government follows up with references and or uses other sources to obtain past performance information.

23. Industry Question: Alaskan Native Corporations RFP meaning-Full Involvement vs. Direct Experience? What is the meaning of full involvement for a sister company past performance involvement?

Government response: Government allows past performance from Alaskan Native Companies sister companies.

24. Industry Question: Corporate experience vs. Past Performance. How is it evaluated?

Government response: Corporate experience can get convoluted. Envision past performance without quality of contract. Not taking 3rd step in to how a contractor did on the contract. Does take relevancy and recency.

25. Industry Question: Corporate Experience as a whole or a specific citation. Can you narrow down citations specifically as corporate experience or is it essentially past performance?

Government response: Corporate experience may be as a whole or specific to effort; the RFP should specify if there are questions bring up during draft RFP (paraphrased).

26. Industry Question: What happens if a contractor submits a past performance questionnaire and the government won’t complete it?

Government response: Contracting team has escalated or moved forward without receiving questionnaires. The government recommends not to pigeon hole to just the COR for completing questionnaires. Engineers or someone who has a working relationship with the contractor is also acceptable. Government contracting team does not check if contact that completed questionnaire is nominated as COR in CORT as long as it is a technical POC.

27. Industry Question: Are Contractors dinged if questionnaire not from COR?

Government response: Depends on who the KO is. Panel KO would not ding.

28. Industry Question: Are questionnaire responses with no explanation satisfactory?

Government response: Yes some KO’s are more in depth.

29. Industry Question: Can Contractor Add to questionnaires?

Government response: Usually there is a block to add other comments but the government would not recommend altering the form.

30. Industry Question: Is it okay to ask for a copy of the questionnaire?

Government response: Government contracting officer stated did not think it was illegal to ask for a copy.

31. Industry Question: Corporate experience vs. Past Performance. Are they combined together? Does this make sense?

Government response: Government recommends asking if there is a question and answer session.

Panel recommendations:

The Government has seen not following directions as a hindrance to contractor proposals. For example if an incumbent submitted a proposal based on the current contract and does not follow the current RFP directions.

Make sure Information is relevant. For example lengthy information on FMS because the word “FMS” is mentioned in an RFP may not be relevant.

Neutral is acceptable past performance. Irrelevant projects sometimes submitted. Contractor could get neutral rating if they say they don’t have relevant experience. For example generator work should not be submitted for a roofing job.