Attch_6_GEODSS_DRAFT_CPAR_Matrix_v2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 3 MB Posted
- Attached to
- Ground-Based Electro Optical Deep Space Surveillance Industry Day Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA251719RA005
About this file
This document provides a Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting (CPAR) matrix template for evaluating contractor performance on a government contract for Ground-Based Electro Optical Deep Space Surveillance (GEODSS). The CPAR matrix contains categories for Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Small Business Utilization, and Regulatory Compliance. Each category includes weighted sub-elements that are scored on a monthly basis. Scores are rolled up to determine quarterly and final annual ratings in the CPAR report. The template offers a customizable framework that government agencies can tailor for specific contract requirements and performance evaluation needs when assessing contractor performance under the GEODSS contract or other agreements.
Attachment 6 - GEODSS Draft CPAR Matrix_v2
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 48
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
NOTE: For "Quick" instructions, see paragraph 7.
1) Paragraph A3.25.4 of the CPARS guide states, "While the evaluation areas represent broad categories, the AO should include clear, supportable information for each area based on objective facts supported by program, quality, and other performance data tailored to the contract type, dollar value, and complexity of the requirement. The AO should present enough information in each applicable category to accurately describe the contractor's performance in a way that provides useful insight for Federal source selection officials." This CPAR Matrix was designed and created to meet this intent. It provides detailed, objective, comprehensive performance data for each of the CPARS categories that are consistent with the CPARS definitions and are tailored to the specific requirement.
2) For illustrative purposes, these instructions reference the orange "Training" tab and focuses on one CPARS category, Quality. The "Training" tab shows a notional representation of sub-elements and ratings. ALL data in this matrix, including sub-elements (column B), matrix thresholds, performance values (row 2), average value ranges (row 3), weights (column C), etc. are HIGHLY TAILORABLE and thus this matrix is completely customizable. In this example, the Quality category is broken down into five (5) separate sub-elements (column B), two of which are "to be determined". Each sub-element is weighted according to its relative importance (column C).
3) The top row (row 2) states the performance values, ranging from +2.50 (Exceptional) to -5.00 (Unsatisfactory). The negative performance values for Marginal and Unsatisfactory are intentionally twice that of the corresponding positive values for Very Good and Excellent to adequately represent the impact of the contractor's failure to meet minimum contract requirements. The next row (row 3) states the average value range needed to earn that CPARS rating. Each sub-element will be scored each month and the scores will be summed. For example, to earn a “Very Good” for the month, ALL sub-elements for that month must sum to between 1.00 and 1.99. Each quarter there will be a “check-in” period where all the monthly scores up to that point will be displayed as a "running average" so the Contractor will know the score they would receive at the end of the year assuming the current trend continues (columns P, X, and AF). At the end of the year, all monthly scores will be averaged to determine the overall category final score, which will determine the CPARS rating for that category. (cell AO11).
4) To determine what value is assigned to a certain sub-element, the performance for that sub-element will be evaluated to determine the performance score. The performance score will then be multiplied by the weight to determine the monthly value for that sub-element. For example, for January in "Sensor Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc)," if the contractor maintained an Acc between 99.5% to less than 100% (cell E7), that would meet the definition of “Very Good” for that sub-element (cell E4) and would be scored as 1.5 points (cell E2). Each point earned gets the weight (cell C7) applied to it. In this case since the Contractor earned 1.5 points for "Very Good" performance, those points are multiplied by the weight for a total score of .30 (the score 1.5 times 20%). All the weighted scores are then added to determine the overall monthly score (cell I11).
5) In order to apply the score, input the letter value corresponding to the rating (i.e. "VG" for "Very Good") in the cell (yellow cell with red outline) for that sub-element for that month. For example, since the Contractor performed to the standard of "Very Good" in the sub-element of "Sensor Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc)" in January, type "VG" (without the quotation marks) in cell I7. The yellow box will change to white and the score will automatically be calculated.
6) Each sub-element receives a rating each month. The spreadsheet will automatically calculate each score and apply them. The scores are applied two ways: 1) horizontally by averaging each month of the quarter to get a "running average" for the sub-element, and 2) vertically by adding each sub-element to see the Contractor's performance ratings across all sub-elements for that month. For example, for the quarter period Jan-Mar, one can see the Contractor's running average for the sub-element "Sensor Contractor Controlled Availability (Acc)" by checking cell O7. To see how it has performed in January across all sub-elements, one can check cell I11. To see its running average across all sub-elements for the quarter, check cell P11.
7) The only cells that will accept inputs are the cells highlighted in yellow with a red border. In the yellow cells, input the Contractor's ratings for that sub-element for that period. The cells only accept E, VG, S, M, or U (for Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Unsatisfactory, respectively). If one of these letter ratings are input into the cell, the cell will change to white and the score will appear next to the letter. The running average will also appear in all of the relevant columns or rows. If any other input is used besides E, VG, S, M, or U, the cell will remain yellow and the score will not appear. As the yellow cells are filled in, the spreadsheet will automatically begin to calculate the score and change color accordingly. (NOTE: on the orange "Training" tab, click on any cell to see a description of the function of that cell).
8) If the Contractor is performing to the standard of "Unsatisfactory," the running average or final score will be equal to or less than -3.01, and the cells will be red. If performing to the standard of "Marginal," the average will be between -1.00 and -3.00 and the cells will be yellow. "Satisfactory" is between -.99 and .99 and the cells will be green. "Very Good" is between 1.00 and 1.99 and the cells will be purple. "Exceptional" is 2.00 or greater and the cells will be blue.
9) All sub-elements will be added together each month to get the monthly score, and then all monthly scores will be averaged together to determine the final CPARS ratings for that category. Only the "Final" total average score of all sub-elements across all sites will determine the Contractor's final CPARS rating for that category for that year, as shown by the final score on the green "Roll-up" tab.
10) This CPAR Matrix consists of four tabs, one for each of the three GEODSS sites and one "Roll-up" tab. Each site will receive its own rating each month. The three site scores will then be averaged in the "Roll-up" tab to reflect the overall score for the contract. These monthly scores will then be averaged to determine the final overall score, which will determine the CPARS rating given for that category.
| NOTES: |
| 1) When populated, the CPAR Matrix contains a Contractor's quality data for the purposes of their CPARS ratings, and thus becomes source selection information and must be protected, in accordance with paragraph 6.1 of the CPARS guide. |
2) This matrix is highly customizable. Some categories may not apply to all contracts (i.e. Utilization of Small Business or Cost Control). Some contracts may only require one or two sub-elements under each category. Some sub-elements may need to be weighted very heavily or very lightly. Columns, rows, weights, value ranges, etc. can be added, deleted, or changed as necessary. This spreadsheet is designed so that it can be customized to meet the needs of virtually any contract.
3) This spreadsheet is set up so that all sub-elements are evaluated every month. It may not be necessary or appropriate to evaluate all categories or sub-elements every month. Some categories may be better evaluated on a quarterly or semi-annual basis, or annually (i.e. Utilization of Small Business). In such a case the formulas can be modified accordingly.
4) An individual incident or performance measure may affect more than one sub-element and possibly more than one category in either a positive or negative way. It's the decision of the assessing official as to whether the incident will be applied to one or multiple areas.
5) In the event of a problem of "serious magnitude," the Government reserves the right to assign a CPARS rating based on the severity of the event, regardless of the final score. The CPARS Guide states, "A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating."
Roll-up
| FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101, 3.104 and 42.1503 | FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101, 3.104 and 42.1503 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Performance Values | 2.50 | 1.50 | 0 | -3.00 | -5.00 | "Exceptional" (E) = 2.50 "Very Good" (VG) = 1.50 "Satisfactory" (S) = 0.00 "Marginal" (M) = -3.00 "Unsatisfactory" (U) = -5.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Overall Average Value Ranges | 2.00 or greater | 1.99 to 1.00 | 0.99 to -0.99 | -1.00 to -3.00 | -3.01 or less | Annual CPAR Scoring | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| CATEGORY/ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sub-elements | Weight | Exceptional | Very Good | Satisfactory | Marginal | Unsatisfactory | Jan | Feb | Mar | 1st Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Apr | May | Jun | 2nd Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Jul | Aug | Sep | 3rd Qtr Avg | Running Avg | Oct | Nov | Dec | 4th Qtr Avg | Overall Average |
| QUALITY | Quality of Product or Service (Subjective) | 40% | Identify multiple significant events exceeding contract requirements and state how they were of benefit to the Government. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. | Identify one or more significant events exceeding contract requirement and state how they were a benefit to the Government. | Met but did not significantly exceed minimum contract requirements. | Failed to meet some minimum contract requirements. Identify a significant event that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. | Failed to meet contract requirements. Identify multiple significant events in each category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacted the Government. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Sensor Contractor-Controlled | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Availability (Acc) | 20% | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 100% | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99.5% to less than 100%. | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 99% to less than 99.5% | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of 97% to less than 99% | Contractor Controlled Availability (ACC) of less than 97%. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Equipment Status Reporting (ESR) | 20% | Submit an IMDS entry in less than one (1) hour | Submit an IMDS entry within one (1) hour of the equipment status change to less than two (2 ) hours | Submit an IMDS entry within two (2) hours of the equipment status change | Submit an IMDS entry in more than two (2) hours of the equipment status change but less than three (3) hours | Submit an IMDS entry in more than three (3) hours | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| MDC Data entered into IMDS | 20% | 98% to 100% initial accurary | 95.1% to 97.9% initial accuracy; 98.9% to 100% accuracy within 72 hours | 95% to 97.9% initial accuracy, 98% accuracy within 72 hours and 100% accuracy within 5 days | Less than 95%, but more than 93% initial accuracy | Less than 93% initial accuracy | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Total Quality | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||||||
| Total Quality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SCHEDULE | Schedule | 70% | Little or no Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure contract schedule requirements are met or exceeded. No Government-identified Corrective Action Requests (CARs). | Minimal Government oversight and follow-up required to ensure contract schedule requirements are met or exceeded. No Government-identified CARs. | Met but did not significantly exceed minimum contract requirements. No Major and no more than 1 Minor Government-identified CAR. | Failed to meet some minimum contract requirements. No Major and no more than 2 Minor Government-identified CARs. | Failed to meet contract requirements. 1 or more Major or 3 or more Minor CARs. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||
| Corrective Actions | 30% | Highly effective corrective actions (little or no Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, and close out deficiencies and trends); Little or no Government technical direction required to solve problems. No RIAs identified. | Effective correction actions (minimal Government oversight required to identify, follow-up on, and close out deficiencies and trends); Some degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. | Moderate degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government technical direction required to solve problems. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||||
| Total Schedule | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| COST CONTROL | Cost Control - GEODSS is a Firm Fixed Price Contract | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total Cost Control | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| MANAGEMENT | Personnel Management | 30% | Highly effective management of personnel to include selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing personnel, when necessary. Contractor fills vacancies with qualified personnel in less than 30 days. | Effective management of personnel to include selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing personnel, when necessary. Contractor fills vacancies with qualified personnel in 30 to 45 days. | Satisfactory management of personnel to include selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing personnel, when necessary. Contractor fills vacancies with qualified personnel within 45 to 60 days. | Marginal management of personnel to include selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing personnel, when necessary. Contractor fills vacancies with qualified personnel in excess of 60 days but less than 75 days. | Unsatisfactory management of personnel to include selecting, retaining, supporting, and replacing personnel, when necessary. Contractor fills vacancies with qualified personnel in excess of 75 days. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Integration and Knowledge Management | 30% | Little or no Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract. KM plan is highly effective. | Minimal Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract. KM plan is very effective. | Moderate Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract and any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. KM plan is effective. | Large degree of Government oversight or follow up required to ensure integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract or any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. KM plan is not effective. | Contractor's management of ensuring integration and coordination of all activity needed to execute the contract failed to meet contract requirements. KM plan failed to meet requirements. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Communication of information to affected program elements | 20% | Little or no Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. | Minimal Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner. | Moderate Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner and any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Large degree of Government oversight or follow up required to communicate appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner or any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Contractor's management of communicating appropriate information to affected program elements in a timely manner failed to meet contract requirements. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Issue Management | 20% | Highly effective issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans. No RIAs identified. | Effective issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans. | Satisfactory issue management practices, including identification and implementation of risk mitigation plans. Any major problems were resolved timely and satisfactorily. | Issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans is marginally effective. Any major problems were not resolved either timely or satisfactorily. | Issue management practices, including identification and implementation of issue mitigation plans are ineffective. Resolution of major problems was ineffective. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Total Management | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| SMALL BUSINESS | Utilization of Small Business (SB) | 100% | Exceededall goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner with no errors or Government intervention required. | Met or exceeded all goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner with few errors and no Government intervention required. | Demonstrated good faith effortto meet all goals contained in the Subcontracting Plan. All reports submitted in an accurate and timely manner. Only minor problems for which corrective actions were satisfactory and no Government intervention required. | Deficientin meeting key subcontracting plan elements, which impacted small business utilization. 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. Reports not submitted in an accurate or timely manner and Government intervention required. | Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, and the Subcontracting Plan. Showed little interest in bringing performance to a satisfactory level or is generally uncooperative. Required a corrective action plan. Reports not submitted in an accurate or timely manner and significant Government intervention required. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Total Utilization of Small Business | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | ||||||
| UTIL. OF SB | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| REGULATORY COMPLIANCE | Regulatory Compliance | 100% | Regulatory compliance met contract requirements. | Regulatory compliance failed to meet contract requirements. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |||
| Total Regulatory Compliance | 100% | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .