Similar to PPIRS-RC, a company can only see their own PPIRS-SR NG data. PPIRS-SR NG provides an overall Supplier Risk Score and color coded rating calculated using multiple other DoD contract systems. It provides a dashboard view that also includes the company’s industry ranking, a “Suspected Counterfeit” indicator, and includes drill down capability to get to the details behind the individual reports. In addition, companies can challenge inaccurate information.

Current Reporting System User Interfaces (Data, Format, Usefulness/Ease of Use)

     Exhibit-4. PPIRS-RC User Interface (All Federal Agencies)

Exhibit-2. Retired/Merged Contractor Performance Systems

System

Description

Retired/Merged

PPIMS

Deployed in 1997, the Army’s Past Performance Information Management System (PPIMS) collected and managed PPI. PPIMS began feeding report cards to PPIRS in 2002. The PPIMs collection PPI function was replaced by CPARS upon retirement.

2007/8 Retired

CPS

Deployed in 1996, the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Contractor Performance System (CPS) was the CPARS/PPIRS of the old days. Initially it contained only NIH PPI data, then grew to collect and hold data on multiple agencies that used this system to track contractor performance on their Federal contracts and task orders. CPS began feeding report cards to PPIRS in 2002. The CPS PPI collection function was replaced by CPARS upon retirement.

2010 Retired

PPDB

With required use in 2000, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Past Performance Database (PPDB) supported the collection, storage, and retrieval of NASA Form 1680 contractor performance records for NASA contracts and task orders. PPDB began feeding report cards to PPIRS in 2002. PPDB’s PPI collection functions was replaced by CPARS upon retirement.

2011 Retired

CCAS

Deployed 1987, the Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS) collected and managed Construction Performance Evaluations. CCASS became a CPARS sub module in 2005 and was fully merged into CPARS in 2014.

2005 sub module

2014 full merge

ACASS

Deployed in 1975, the Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) collected and managed A-E Performance Evaluations. ACASS became a CPARS sub module in 2005 and was fully merged into CPARS in 2014.

2005 sub module

2014 full merge

The importance of contractor past performance information (PPI) and contractor responsibility data has continually increased in U.S. Federal Government contract awards. With the goal of “excellent contract performance that provides products or services at the best value for the taxpayer's dollar”, the Government mandates and regulations have instigated major contractor performance systems modernizations. These system modernizations have evolved the PPI collection and data access processes from an “ad-hoc” method of non-standardized data/ratings with minimal participation, to a standardized method with high levels of Government-wide participation and mandated use.

This article discusses the:

  • History of the U.S. Federal Government’s Contractor Performance Systems (late 1990s to 2017 - see Exhibit-1)
  • Current Reporting System User Interfaces
  • Current Reporting System Access, Usage, and Constraints
  • Potential Future Outcomes / Impacts on Contractors and Government


Exhibit – 1. History of the U.S. Federal Government’s Contractor Performance Systems.

I was introduced to the Federal Government’s Contractor performance systems in the 1990s when I began writing Past Performance for Federal Contractors. At that time, the Federal Government collected varying levels of contractor performance data on an agency-by-agency basis. Each used its own method to collect and report contractor performance data. Their methods ranged from manual paper-based processes to fully automated web-based systems that collected and reported contractor performance data (Report Cards). The timeline at the bottom of Exhibit-1 shows the introduction of today’s contractor performance systems and the major Government regulations/mandates that drove the systems from “Then” to “Now”.

Exhibit-2 highlights the most widely used systems, in my experience, that have been retired or merged into today’s systems.

This article provides a more detailed look into the History of U.S. Federal Government Performance Management system's modernization from the late 1990s to February 2017. This is the more detailed version of one published in the February 2017 APMP-NCA eZine on Federal IT modernizations affecting Federal business development and proposals.

Potential Future Outcomes / Impacts on Contractors and Government (my personal opinions/wish list):

PPIRS-RC :

  • Potentially provide overall score or dashboard view (which some evaluations do, & many contractors have developed). While this would be nice to have, it is important to note that the details will always be important, because ratings and comments sometime conflict and/or are sometimes not consistent with rating scale. This could cause issues due to different assessor grading styles.
  • This system could become more useful and effective if the CPARs in PPIRS replaced Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) in source selections. While this is becoming more and more prevalent in RFPs/RFQs there are still a number of solicitations that require PPQs that ask for similar information available in the CPARs (report cards).
  • It would also be helpful to come up with a standardized method for using PPI across all source selection evaluations. For example, provide specific guidelines on exactly how to use the ratings and comments, etc. that are now available in the standardized PPI. This would allow contractors and source selection authorities to both be on the same page during proposal preparation and evaluations.


PPIRS-SR NG:

  • Allow future access via username and password like PPIRS-RC
  • Open up the collection and use of the data to all Government agencies (not just DoD) for product and service contract evaluations below SAT.


FAPIIS:

  • Future potential issue: Contractors will continue to be suspicious of the accuracy and effectiveness of the system and data when there is the appearance of varying levels of available data and the appearance of uneven use of that data in source selections. Just like CPARS went through the regulations and guidance phases where accountability became a key issue, we may need reporting/auditing mechanisms to ensure complete, timely, and accurate data is reflected in FAPIIS. It is highly possible that we don’t have fully accurate/timely data in FAPIIS. Research should be done to confirm this. A start would be to compare POGO’s data from http://www.contractormisconduct.org/ to https://www.FAPIIS.gov records.



In Summary, we have come a long way from the 1990s where:

  • The PPI data was non-standard (different rating scales, different metrics collected, different systems/methods, etc.) and Responsibility data was not tracked in a centralized location.
  • The PPI data was stored in multiple locations across difference agencies.
  • There was low participation in PPI collection compared to the number of contracts awarded.


To now, where we have awareness and guidance in-place that has driven:

  • The modernization of integrated systems to collect and report standardized PPI data for contracts over the SAT.
  • The beginnings of standardized data for contracts below the SAT.
  • The collection of responsibility data through a centralized system.
  • High participation in the collection and use of PPI, which continues to rise.
  • Contractors being more attentive to their PPI by communicating with their Government customers and tracking the data for internal use.


While it is evident that progress takes time and continuous attention to continue to realize improvement, I believe that since the 1990s there has been considerable progress toward the Government receiving “…products or services at the best value for the taxpayer's dollar!” But there are still opportunities for improvement.


Click here for More UPLLC CPARs and PPM Articles.


                                                        Ultimus Performance LLC © 2017 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Exhibit-6. FAPIIS User Interface (Private and Public view available)

Exhibit-3. Active Contractor Performance Systems as of February 2017

System

Description

Activated

CPARS

The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is the Federal Government-wide system used to capture contractor PPI (Report Cards) on contracts and task orders over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT)/$150k. CPARs began feeding report cards to PPIRS in 2002

1998

PPIRS-RC

The Past Performance Information Retrieval System-Report Cards (PPIRS-RC) is the Federal Government-wide Central Report Card/Contract Assessment repository that began housing the contractor performance data in 2002 for contracts over the SAT. In 2009 Federal agencies were mandated to post all contractor evaluation reports to PPIRS-RC. Note PPIRS is a repository only and report cards are generated and added from CPARS.

2002

PPIRS-SR NG

The PPIRS-Statistical Reporting system (PPIRS-SR) began collecting DoD contractor performance data in 2004 (for contracts under SAT) using a aggregated score calculation formula based on a variety of data from other systems. In 2015, the DoD migrated to the PPIRS-SR Next Generation (PPIRS-SR NG) system and mandated it’s use for all DoD contracts under the SAT.

2004

FAPIIS

The Federal Awardee Performance Integrity and Information System (FAPIIS) is used to record poor performance events like terminations, criminal activity, etc. (recently adding late sub payments to the list) – FAPIIS relies on Agency and contractor “self-reporting” and was mandated for use in grants in 2016.

2010

For Industry, PPIRS-RC can only be viewed by the contractor that owns the contract/TO. Since this information is labeled “Source Selection Sensitive”, there is no public view to see other contractor’s report cards (CPARs). PPIRS-RC provides a list of report cards for your company by contract/TO & evaluated timeframe. It offers filtering and a query capability to narrow the search if you have a large number of report cards, or can help to find specific report cards. This interface provides no indication of performance and you need to open and read each report card (3+ pages) individually to get the contract details, ratings, and comments. 

Exhibit-7 summarizes the PPI and responsibility reporting system’s attributes and use.

PPIRS-RC usage continues to grow with increasing awareness and Federal Agency CPARS compliance. There continues to be more and more CPARs available for review in PPIRS.

·        Access: Contractor’s require DoD ECA PKI Cert, or Login and Password.

·        Government Usage: Used by Source Selection authorities Government-wide to evaluate contractor PPI for contract/task order award decisions above SAT ($150K):

o   GSA OASIS used ground-breaking formula to award evaluation points based on CPAR ratings.

o   A2SB VETS2, SEWP V, HCaTS, & many more included the use of CPARs from PPIRS in their evaluation criteria.

·        Industry Usage: Companies use the data internally for many purposes that include:

o   Tracking Government perception of company’s performance that can affect contract awards.

o   Tracking internal quality and customer satisfaction and for recognition or issue remediation.

o   A tool to generate or continue healthy communications with the Government client.

o   A source of proof points, ratings, experience, and customer quotes for proposals and RFIs.

·        Constraints: For contractors, requires continuous monitoring and detailed analysis to ensure accuracy and identify pertinent materials/data. For effectiveness, requires accurate and complete CPAR ratings/comments by assessors, which can be a cumbersome process.

PPIRS-SR used by DoD only to capture Supplier Risk information based on PPI.

·        Access: Contractor’s require DoD ECA PKI Cert.

·        Government Usage: Mandated for use in DoD contracts evaluations below SAT ($150K).

·        Industry Usage: Companies use the data internally for many purposes that include:

o   Tracking Government perception of company’s performance that can affect contract awards.

o   Tracking internal quality and customer satisfaction and for recognition or issue remediation.

o   A tool to generate or continue healthy communications with the Government client.

o   A source of proof points, ratings, experience, and customer quotes for proposals and RFIs.

·        Constraints: For contractors, requires continuous monitoring and detailed analysis to ensure accuracy and identify pertinent materials/data. Requires DoD ECA Cert to access with ongoing cost to contractors.

FAPIIS used to track contractor performance and integrity information for “Responsibility Determinations” required by FAR 9.104-6.

·        Access: The Contractor-only view is accessible through PPIRS.gov and requires DoD ECA PKI Cert, or Login and Password. The Public view is available through FAPIIS.gov and is open to everyone.

·        Government Usage: Used Government-wide for contracts above SAT ($150K). Used by Source Selection authorities to make responsibility determinations in contract/task order award decisions.

·        Industry Usage: There are multiple levels of use for this information that include Contractors tracking:

o   The accuracy of their own data and “Self-Reporting” relevant information

o   Competitors/potential teammates performance and integrity information

·        Public Usage: The public can track contractor integrity data (media, individuals, watchdog organizations, etc.).

·        Constraints: Partially relies on contractors “Self-Reporting” negative information on themselves. While required by FAR, I am  unaware of any mechanisms ensuring timely/accurate reporting of information. Unsure how effective “Self-Reporting” is…see http://www.wifcon.com/cofc/15-1279.pdf for example.

U.S. Federal Government Contractor Performance System History - by Rob Muzzio

Current Reporting System Access, Usage, and Constraints

Federal Business Development Consulting

 

Exhibit-3 highlights the modernized systems that are currently used to collect and report on contractor PPI and responsibility.

The FAPIIS dashboard view is easy to read and provides drill down capabilities. There are two user interfaces to view FAPIIS data: 1) Like PPIRS-RC it offers the company view (private view) that only allows a company to view its own data; 2) FAPIIS offers a public view allowing anyone to look up any company’s FAPIIS data (minus the PPIRS-RC information).

Exhibit-5. PPIRS-SR NG User Interface (DoD Only)