Free Response to Supplemental Brief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
BLR GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 07-579 C (Judge Sweeney)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant.

) ) )

BLR GROUP'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

EXHIBIT A

4775522

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 12

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Guide
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

March 2006

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 3 of 12

Section A -- Policy 1.0

Introduction

This document sets policy, assigns responsibilities and provides procedures for systematically assessing contractor performance as required by Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) Part 42.
1.1

Background

The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is a paperless
contracting initiative directed by SAF/AQC [see AF FAR Supplement (AFFARS) 5342].

of the CPARS Automated Information System (AIS) for the thresholds found in Table is mandatory as it ensures that evaluations will be entered into the CPARS database to provide a centralized data repository of past performance information (PPI). Paper copies of the evaluations are to be used only for classified and special access programs. The automated CPARS must be used for all other evaluations meeting the
Use
1

criteria in Table 1.
1.2

Purpose

The primary purpose of the CPARS is to ensure that accurate data on contractor performance is current and available for use in source selections through the Past
Performance Informational Retrieval System (PPIRS). Performance assessments will be

used as a resource in awarding best value contracts and orders to contractors that
consistently provide quality, on-time products and services that conform to contractual requirements. CPARS can be used to effectively communicate contractor strengths and weaknesses to source selection officials. Senior Air Force and contractor officials may also use information derived from the CPARS for other management purposes consistent with DoD guidance and policy.
The CPAR assesses a contractor's performance and provides a record, both positive and negative, on a given contract during a specified period of time. Each assessment must be

based on objective data (or measurable, subjective data when objective data is not available) supportable by program' and contract management data, such as cost performance reports, customer comments, quality reviews, technical interchange meetings, production management reviews, contractor operations reviews, functional
performance evaluations, earned contract incentives, quality assurance evaluations, etc.

Subjective assessments concerning the cause or ramifications of the contractor's
performance may be provided, however, speculation or conjecture must not be included. Attachments 3 and 4 to this document contain the specific areas to be evaluated for the identified business sectors. A best practice is to include performance expectations in the Government and contractor's initial post-award meeting.

Throughout this document, whenever "program" is used, it means the program, project, or task/delivery order for which the procurement was made.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 4 of 12

1.3

Responsibility for Completing CPARS
Responsibility for completing quality CPARS in a timely manner rests with the Program

Manager (PM) or the equivalent individual responsible for project execution of each
Command's or Direct Reporting Unit's (DRU5) contracts.

The value of CPARs to a future source selection team is inextricably linked to the care the Assessing Official (AO)2 (PM or equivalent individual responsible for program,
project, or task/delivery order execution) takes in preparing a quality and timely narrative to accompany the CPAR ratings. It is of the utmost importance that the AO submits a

rating consistent with the definitions of each rating (Attachment 2) and thoroughly
describes the circumstances surrounding a rating.

The CPARS process is designed with a series of checks-and-balances to facilitate the objective and consistent evaluation of contractor performance. Both Government and contractor perspectives are captured on the CPAR form. The opportunity to review/comment on the CPAR by the designated Government and contractor personnel
together makes a complete CPAR.
1.4

Responsibility for Completing CPARs that have Contract Performance at Multiple
Sites

In the event there are multiple assessments on one contract due to Geographically Separated Units (GSUs), the AO of the office or GSU with the preponderance of the effort (based on largest dollar value) on the contract will consolidate the multiple
assessments and provide a consensus evaluation and rating of the performance prior to forwarding to the contractor.
1.5

Uses of Summary CPAR Data
Summary data from the CPARS database or from the reports themselves may be used to measure the status of industry performance and support continuous process improvement. Further analysis of data from the CPARS database may be accomplished by the CPAR

Focal Point for internal Government use but is not authorized for release outside the
Government.

NOTE: For AFMC systems acquisitions, the AO will always be the person who has overall responsibility for acquisition of a system within the approved Acquisition Program Baseline and must be at least at the Squadron Commander/Director, Group Commander/Director, Wing Commander/Director level, or a PM that is a direct report to the Wing Commander/Director consistent with the level at which the program is organized.

2

2

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 5 of 12

1.6

CPAR Requirements for Program Executive Officer (PEO) Programs
SAF/AQ requires that Program Executive Officers (PEOs) present summary data at PEO

portfolio reviews by providing a single CPAR chart on each Acquisition Category
(ACAT) I program and on PEO program major development and production contracts;

the hard copy will be marked "Source Selection Sensitive/For Official Use Only
(SSIIFOUO)" and will not be displayed on overheads. For AFPEO/CM reviews, the

CPARS ratings must be addressed in the annual review required by the Air Force
Management and Oversight of the Acquisition of Services Process (MOASP).
1.7

Successor-in-Interest/Change-of-Name/Novation
See FAR 42.12 for guidance in these circumstances since the DUNS, CAGE codes and contractor names may be affected in the CPARS. The AO of each contract affected by any such changes is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the contract information in the CPARS is current and correct.

3

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 6 of 12

3.4
3.4.1

CPARS Roles and Responsibilities

Activity CPARS Focal Point
The Activity CPARS Focal Point will be designated by completing a Focal Point Access Request Form located at the CPARS web site and obtaining coordination/approval from

the MAJCOM/DRU Focal Point authority.
responsible for:
· ·

The Activity CPARS Focal Point is

Training Assigning access authorization for Government and contractor personnel (complete

contract authorization access based on information from the Contracting Officer
· ·

(CO), Program/Project Manager, AO and contractor personnel authorized to appoint a designated representative) CPARS account management and maintenance (e.g., access changes) Control and monitoring of CPARs, including the status of overdue evaluations. The

CPAR Focal Point at each activity is responsible for monitoring the status of late reports. Local processes should be established for the Focal Point to notify the
·

Activity Commander or PEO, if applicable, of reports more than 30 days overdue Establishing processes to monitor the integrity (e.g., quality) of the report

While the Activity CPARS Focal Point is not directly responsible for the timely
submission or content of CPARS reports, they are a resource for information regarding input of CPARS information. Although the Activity CPARS Focal Point is responsible for tracking and suspensing CPARs as they become due, this does not relieve the AOs of the responsibility for processing quality reports in a timely manner.

3.4.2 AO Representative (AOR)
AORs typically are assigned from the technical, functional, quality assurance, specialty, program management or contracting offices. Multiple AORs may be assigned per contract. Each assigned AOR has the capability of inputting and reviewing information input by the other AORs. AORs are generally responsible for:
· ·

·

Providing a timely and quality narrative Coordinating, off-line, to determine which AOR will select "finalize data and forward to AO" since any AOR has that capability (once that choice is selected, AORs are no longer able to input evaluation information) Assisting the AO or RO, as necessary

3.4.3

Assessing Official (AO)
The AO is responsible for overall program execution and is responsible for preparing (see Attachments 3 and for instructions on preparing report), reviewing, signing, and processing the CPAR. Normal UserID/password authorization access in the CPARS AIS and its requirement for 128-bit encryption is equivalent to signature. When an assessment by a RO is required, the CPAR should be completed and signed by the RO not later than 120 days

8

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 7 of 12

after the end of the evaluation period. AOs are encouraged to foster communication between the Government and contractor about their CPARS evaluations during the entire performance period and CPAR process. AO responsibility includes:
·

·

Registering the contract in CPARS within 30 days of award by completing the basic contract information in Blocks 1-17 (this function may be provided by contractor personnel providing assistance to Government program offices, however, their access to the CPARS database is limited to only this function) Ensuring performance input from program management, technical, functional, quality assurance, contracting and other end users of the product or service is included in the
evaluation Reviewing evaluation information provided by the AORs Input of evaluation information

· ·
·

·

Quality review of the entire evaluation Forwarding the Government evaluation information to the contractor (check with local policy whether the RO or CO should be forwarded a copy prior to its submittal to the contractor)

·
·

Reviewing comments from the designated contractor representative once the
evaluation has been returned by the contractor or after 30 days have lapsed Modifying the CPAR comments and/or ratings after review of contractor comments, as determined by the AO. After receiving and reviewing the contractor's comments on the CPAR, the AO may revise the assessment, including the narrative. The AO

will notify the contractor of any revisions made to a report as a result of the
contractor's comments. Such a revised report will not be sent to the contractor for further comment. The contractor will have access to both the original and revised
·

reports in the CPARS AIS when the Government finalizes the evaluation. Forwarding evaluations to the RO which are in disagreement or when requested by

the contractor or when the contractor fails to respond to the assessment, or, in the
·

alternative, Completing the evaluation if it does not require further RO review

3.4.4

Designated Contractor Representative

The contractor shall designate representatives to whom the evaluations will be sent automatically and electronically. The name, title, e-mail address and phone number of the designated contractor representative shall be provided to the AO who will, in turn, provide that information to the Activity CPARS Focal Point for authorization access. Any changes in designated contractor personnel shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to inform the AO and the Activity CPARS Focal Point. The designated
contractor representative has the authority to:
· ·

Receive the Government evaluation from the AO Review/comment/return evaluation to AO within 30 days. If the contractor desires a

·

meeting to discuss the CPAR, it must be requested, in writing, no later than seven calendar days from the receipt of the CPAR. This meeting will be held during the contractor's 30-day review period Request RO review
9

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 8 of 12

3.4.5

Reviewing Official (RO)3

The RO (Table 1) provides the check-and-balance when there is disagreement between the AO and the contractor. The RO must review and sign the assessment when there are significant differences between the AO and the contractor assessment. The RO has the
authority to:
·
·

Provide narrative comment (the RO's comments supplement those provided by the AO; they do not replace the ratings/narratives provided by the AO) Sign the CPAR (at this point, it is considered final and is posted in the CPARS AIS and is available for source selection official use in the PPIRS)

Note: For AFMC, the RO must be at least the Wing Commander. Local processes will designate this individual. For PEO programs, the PEO will be given the option of acting as the RO. For Science and Technology (S&T) 6.4funded contracts, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Commander may delegate this authority to the Center Technology Director.

10

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 9 of 12

Attachment 3 Form and Instructions for Completing a Systems CPAR
' / SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -- SEE FAR 3.104

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT (CPAR)
1. NAME/ADDRESS OFCONTRACTOR (DIVISION)
2

SYSTEMS
ADDENDUM

INITIAL o

INTERMEDIATE

FINAL REPORT

OUT OF CYCLE

3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE BEING ASSESSED

CAGE CODE

DUNS + 4 NUMBER

4a. CONTRACT NUMBER

4b. DOD BUSINESS SECTOR & SUB-SECTOR

FSC OR SERIVCE CODE

NAICS

5. CONTRACTING OFFICE (ORGANIZATION AND CODE)

6. LOCATION OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE (If not in item 1)

7a. CONTRACTING OFFICER

7b. PHONE NUMBER

8a. CONTRACT AWARD DATE

8b. CONTRACT EFFEC, VE DATE

9. CONTRACT COMPLETION
DATE

10. CONTRACT PERCENT COMPLETE / DELIVERY ORDER STATUS

11. AWARDED VALUE

12. CURRENT CONTRACT DOLLAR VALUE

13. 14.

IU
[J CPIF

COMPETITIVE

NON-COMPETITIVE

CONTRACT TYPE

[J FFP

[] FPI

FPR

LI CPFF

[I CPAF

Li OTHER

MIXED:

15. KEY SUBCONTRACTORS AND DESCRIPTION OF EFFORT PERFORMED

16. PROGRAM TITLE AND PHASE OF ACQUISITION (If applicable)

17. wri I -ui ti-roR

I UN (flIIflh,fl1 Key components, technoIoios and requirements; key milestone events and major moditlcat ions to contract duiing this petiod.)

18. EVALUATE THE FOLLOWING AREAS a. TECHNICAL (QUALITY OF PRODUCT) (1) PRODUCT PERFORMANCE (2) SYSTEMS ENGINEERING (3) SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (4) LOGISTIC SUPPORT/SUSTAINMENT (5) PRODUCT ASSURANCE (6) OTHER TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE
b. SCHEDULE

PAST COLOR

RED

YELLOW

GREEN

PURPLE

DARK BLUE

N/A

c. COST CONTROL d. MANAGEMENT (1) MANAGEMENT RESPONSIVENESS (2) SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT (3) PROGRAM MANAGEMENT & OTHER MANAGEMENT e. OTHER AREAS
(1) (2) DD Form 2848, ApflI 2002

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (When Filled In)

A3-1

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 10 of 12

Attachment 3 Form and Instructions for Completing a Systems CPAR
19.

VARIANCE (Contract to date)

CURRENT

COMPLETION

COST VARIANCE (%) SCHEDULE VARIANCE (%)

20. ASSESSING OFFICIAL çi.e. PROGRAM MANAGER OR EQUIVALENT INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAM, PROJECT OR TASK/JOB ORDER EXECUTION) NARRATIVE (SEE PARA. 1.3)

21. TYPE NAME AND TITLE OF ASSESSING OFFICIAL (SEE PARA.
1.3)

ORGANATION AND CODE

PHONE NUMBER

FAX NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS: SIGNATURE DATE

22. CONTRACTOR COMMENTS (Contractor's Option)

23. TYPE NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR REPRESENTATIVE

PHONE NUMBER

FAX NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS: SIGNATURE
DATE

24. REVIEW BY REVIEWING OFFICIAL (Comments Optional)

25. TYPE NAME AND TITLE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL

ORGANIZATION AND CODE

PHONE NUMBER

FAX NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS: SIGNATURE
DATE

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY / SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -- SEE FAR 3.104

A3-2

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 11 of 12

Attachment 3 Form and Instructions for Completing a Systems CPAR

A3.25.1 If the contract contains an award fee clause, enter "award fee" in the "Other Areas"

Block (1 8e). The AO should translate the award fee earned to color ratings which could prove more useful for using past performance to assess future performance risk in upcoming source
selections.

If award fee infonnation is included in the CPAR, use Block 20 to provide a

description for each award fee. Include the scope of the award fee by describing the extent to which it covers the total range of contract performance activities, or is restricted to certain
elements of the contract.

A3.25.2 If any other type of contract incentive is included in the contract (excluding contract shareline incentives on fixed price or cost-type contracts), it should be reported in a manner similar to the procedures described above for award fee (by entering "Incentive" in Block 1 8e).
A3.25.3 Use Block 1 Se in those instances where an aspect of the contractor's performance does

not fit into any of the other blocks on the form. As an example, this block may be used to address security issues, provide an assessment of provisioning line items or other areas as
appropriate.

Block 19 - Variance (Contract-to-Date). If Cost Performance Report (CPR) or Cost/Schedule Status Review (C/SSR) data are available, identify the current percent cost variance to date, the Government's estimated completion cost variance (percent), and the
A3.26

cumulative schedule variance (percent). Indicate the cutoff date for the CPR or C/S SR used.

A3 .26.1 Compute current cost variance percentage by dividing cumulative cost variance to date

(column 11 of the CPR, column 6 of the C/SSR) by the Budgeted Cost of Work Performed
(BCWP) and multiply by 100.
A3.26.2 Compute completion cost variance percentage by dividing the Contract Budget Baseline (CBB) less the Government's Estimate At Completion (EAC) by CBB and multiplying by 100. The calculation is [(CBB - EAC)/CBB] X 100. The CBB must be the current budget

base against which the contractor is performing (including formally established Over Target Baselines (OTB)). If an OTB has been established since the last CPAR, a brief description in Block 20 of the nature and magnitude of the baseline adjustment must be provided. Subsequent CPARS must evaluate cost performance in terms of the revised baseline and reference the CPAR that described the baseline adjustment. For example, "The contract baseline was formally adjusted on (date); see CPAR for (period covered by report) for an explanation."
A3.26.3 Compute cumulative schedule variance percentage by dividing the Budgeted Cost of

Work Performed (BCWP) less budgeted cost of work scheduled (BCWS) by BCWS and
multiply by 100. The calculation is [(BCWP - BCWS)/BCWS] X 100. If the schedule variance exceeds 15 percent (positive or negative), briefly discuss in Block 20 the significance of this variance for the contract effort.

A3 .27 Block 20 - AO Narrative (see paragraph 1.3). A factual narrative is required for all assessments regardless of color rating (e.g., even "green" or "satisfactory" ratings require narrative support). Cross-reference the comments in Block 20 to their corresponding evaluation area in Block 18 or 19. Each narrative statement in support of the area assessment must contain objective data. An exceptional cost performance assessment could, for example, cite the current
A3- 10

Case 1:07-cv-00579-MMS

Document 21-2

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 12 of 12

Attachment 3 Form and Instructions for Completing a Systems CPAR

underrun dollar value and estimate at completion. A marginal engineering design/support
assessment could, for example, be supported by information concerning personnel changes. Key

engineers familiar with the effort may have been replaced by less experienced engineers.
Sources of data include operational test and evaluation results; technical interchange meetings; production readiness reviews; earned contract incentives; or award fee evaluations. The AO's

comments in Block 20 may be up to 16,000 characters (approximately three pages) in the
CPARS AIS.

A3.27.1 The AO must choose the applicable choice to the following statement after block 20: "Given what I know today about the contractor's ability to execute what he promised in his proposal, I (definitely would not, probably would not, might or might not, probably would or definitely would) award to him today given that I had a choice."

A3.28 Block 21 - AO Signature. The AO enters his or her name, title, and organization (AF users do not include a code), phone number (in the following format: (XXX)XXX-XXXX
DSNXXXXXXX), email address, FAX number, and signs and dates the form prior to making it available to the contractor for review.

A3.29 Block 22 - Contractor Comments. Completed at the option of the contractor. The
contractor's narrative comments may be up to 16,000 characters (approximately three pages).

Block 23 - Contractor Representative Signature. The contractor representative reviewing/commenting on the CPAR will enter his or her name, title, phone number, email
A3.30

address, FAX number, and signs and dates the form prior to returning it to the AO.

Comments. The RO must acknowledge consideration of any significant discrepancies between the AO assessment and the contractor's comments. The RO's narrative comments may be up to 16,000 characters (approximately three pages).
A3.3 1 Block 24 - RO

A3.32 Block 25 - RO Signature. The RO will enter his or her name, title, organization (AF users do not include a code), phone number (in the following format: (XXX)XXX-XXXX DSNXXXXXXX), email address, FAX number, and date when completing the CPAR. (See
Table 1 for guidance as to who may act as the RO.)

A3-ll