Contract Administrators’ and
Purchasing Directors’ Meeting
January 12, 2006
Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting
January 12, 2006 Agenda
•
MyFloridaMarketPlace update
• OPPAGA survey update
• Agency feedback on new website
• Update on VPT testing and launch
• Best Practices – Past performance information
• Future direction / Next meeting
2
MyFloridaMarketPlace
Update
• Welcome Rachael Grumme from DOT; reviewing
candidates for other two positions
• Jan 17-19 – Ariba public sector user group meeting
• Jan 24 – Master Agreement focus group meeting
• Jan 26 – Invoicing focus group meeting
• Feb 8 – User group meeting at DEP
3
Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting
January 12, 2006 Agenda
•
MyFloridaMarketPlace update
• OPPAGA survey update
• Agency feedback on new website
• Update on VPT testing and launch
• Best Practices – Past performance information
• Future direction / Next meeting
4
Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting
January 12, 2006 Agenda
•
MyFloridaMarketPlace update
• OPPAGA survey update
• Agency feedback on new website
• Update on VPT testing and launch
• Best Practices – Past performance information
• Future direction / Next meeting
5
Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting
January 12, 2006 Agenda
•
MyFloridaMarketPlace update
• OPPAGA survey update
• Agency feedback on new website
• Update on VPT testing and launch
• Best Practices – Past performance information
• Future direction / Next meeting
6
Vendor Performance Tracking
User Acceptance Testing
Representatives from DOR, DJJ, HSMV, DOH, DOT, DMS received
training and used the system and were asked:
• Did the system work? That is, did you get email requesting a rating
after approving a receiving report or invoice, did you understand the
scoring concept, were you able to perform the rating when you
clicked the link in the email, and were you able to see the scores of
vendors who were rated?
• Is the system user friendly, i.e. prompts and fields are
understandable, process moves quickly, etc.?
• Is the system useful, i.e. as vendor scores and ratings are
accumulated, can you see how the information would be useful to
your agency?
• Comments/recommendations on the testing experience
7
Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting
January 12, 2006 Agenda
•
MyFloridaMarketPlace update
• OPPAGA survey update
• Agency feedback on new website
• Update on VPT testing and launch
• Best Practices – Past performance information
• Future direction / Next meeting
8
RoadMap to Excellence
Findings re: Vendor Monitoring and Rating
• Systems for properly monitoring and rating vendor performance are
inadequate or non-existent.
• [T]here is no uniform requirement in Florida law for an agency to
monitor the performance of its contractual service providers or
prepare a closeout document to rate vendors’ performance.
• [T]here is no requirement for prospective procurers to consider other
agencies’ prior experience with a vendor. Consequently, vendors with
inadequate performance may receive additional contracts because
there is no system to capture performance results and incorporate
these results into the selection process.
• [A] system of rating contractors on previous contract performance
would ensure that the contractor’s performance history is known and
is considered during the bid evaluation process.
9
Past Performance Information
Clean Harbors Decision
• What was going on in this matter?
• What could the contract administrator have done
differently?
• What could the procurement staff have done differently?
• Does the decision make sense?
• Did it reach the right result?
10
Past Performance Information
Best Practices Development and Resources
• Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 signaled a
“sea change” – past performance evaluation required for
all competitively negotiated acquisitions over $100,000
• OFPP, A Guide to Best Practices for Past Performance
(Interim ed. May 1995)
• OFPP/OMB, Best Practices for Collecting and Using
Current and Past Performance Information (May 2000)
• http://www.acqnet.gov/Library/OFFP/BestPractices
11
Past Performance Information
Federal Contracting Officer Concerns
• Past performance and quality certifications are not
perfect predictors
• Past performance and quality certifications do not always
apply
• Past performance is not always a discriminator in source
selections
• Giving a contractor a poor evaluation can lead to legal
action against the Government raters
12
Past Performance Information
Federal Suggested Rating System
• Assessment Areas
–
–
–
–
Quality
Timeliness
Cost Control
Business Relations
• Performance Ratings
–
–
–
–
–
Exceptional (5)
Very Good (4)
Satisfactory (3)
Marginal (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
13
Past Performance Information
Acquisition Team’s Homework
• Track and document contract performance closely
• Read and understand the contractor’s cost, schedule, and
performance reporting data
• Know how well the contractor is meeting its other contract
requirements, i.e., socio-economic
• Know if the Government contributed to performance problems
• Actively work to eliminate Government roadblocks to excellent
performance
• Document discussions (needn’t always be “formal” evaluations, but
must be able to track steps taken to improve performance)
• Recognize successful efforts to improve performance
14
Past Performance Information
Using as Source Selection Factor
• “Past performance can and should be used to do
more than just help the Government decide
whether a contractor is capable of performing.”
15
Past Performance Information
Using as Source Selection Factor
• “Past performance can and should be used to do more
than just help the Government decide whether a
contractor is capable of performing.”
• “The Government must also compare the past track
records of competing offerors to help identify which one
offers the best relative value in order to get the best deal
for the taxpayer.”
• “Using past performance as an evaluation factor to rank
an otherwise responsible contractor for award of a
contract is not, therefore, part of the responsibility
determination.”
16
Past Performance as Selection Factor
Key Points for the Solicitation
• Agency should establish a clear relationship among the statement of
work, proposal instructions, and evaluation criteria
• Contractors should provide references
• Contractors should be encouraged to discuss any negative
performance issues and corrective actions taken
• Government must include the method of evaluating the information and
its relevancy, and the relative rank or applicable weight assigned to
current and past performance
– At least 25% recommended, but less is appropriate if market
research reveals not a meaningful discriminator
You can only evaluate what you told the contractor you would evaluate.
Therefore, be very clear in the solicitation!
17
Past Performance as Selection Factor
Proposal Instructions
• Tailor the requirements to reflect complexity
• Get references - 5 to 10 specific contracts (not more than 3 years
old) and a list of contact names and addresses for each reference
• Limit contractor’s ability to “cherry pick”
• Provide opportunity to discuss problems
• Consider similar non-agency contracts (opportunity for new firms)
• Consider key personnel, major subs, previous business
organizations (reduce neutral ratings)
• Propriety source selection information – not in Florida!
18
Past Performance as Selection Factor
Proposal Instructions
• Rely on existing documentation to maximum possible extent
(otherwise, surveys and phone calls)
• Get two contacts for non-agency references
• Include statement that you may use information from other sources
for both responsibility determination and best value decision
• For large, multi-function firms, limit references to work done by
relevant segment
• Where large volume of proposals expected, consider early
submission of past performance information to allow time for
thorough review
19
Past Performance as Selection Factor
Evaluation Criteria
• Use past performance as a distinct factor
• Chose past performance subfactors wisely
–
–
–
–
Tailor to statement of work
Add value to overall assessment
Warrant additional time to evaluate
Enhance discrimination among competing proposals
• Subs, teams, and J/V partners
– Consider past performance of the entire business arrangement
– Evaluate each firm in the overall arrangement on its performance
under contracts for similar products or services
20
Past Performance as Selection Factor
Evaluating Performance
•
Validate information and assign a performance risk rating (color, number,
adjective, or other) – in the manner and at the time indicated in the
solicitation
•
Consider number and severity of problems, recency and relevancy
•
Consider demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just
planned or promised)
•
Consider overall work record
•
Relate instances of good or poor work to the solicitation requirements - look for
indications of excellent or exceptional performance in the most critical areas
•
Consider Government involvement in performance problems
•
Document rationale – need not be voluminous, but must be reasonable, i.e.,
based on analysis, verification, or corroboration of the information, and
evaluated against the factors stated in the solicitation
21
Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting
January 12, 2006 Agenda
•
MyFloridaMarketPlace update
• OPPAGA survey update
• Agency feedback on new website
• Update on VPT testing and launch
• Best Practices – Past performance information
• Future direction / Next meeting
22
Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting
Next Meeting
Time:
2:00 pm to 4:00 pm
Date:
Thursday, February 9, 2006
Location:
TBD
23