This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-707 
entitled 'Contractor Performance: Actions Taken to Improve Reporting 
of Past Performance Information' which was released on August 7, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

August 2014: 

Contractor Performance: 

Actions Taken to Improve Reporting of Past Performance Information: 

GAO-14-707: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-707, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Having complete, timely, and accurate information on contractor 
performance allows officials responsible for awarding new federal 
contracts to make informed decisions. Agencies generally are required 
to document contractor performance on contracts or orders exceeding 
certain dollar thresholds. 

Section 853 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013 required the development of a strategy to ensure that timely, 
accurate, and complete information on contractor performance is 
included in past performance databases. The act also required a change 
to the timeframes allowed for contractors to provide comments, 
rebuttals, or additional information pertaining to past performance 
information. The act required GAO to report on the actions taken in 
response to these requirements. For this report, GAO identified (1) 
the OFPP strategy to improve the number and quality of contractor past 
performance evaluations and implement provisions of the act, and (2) 
changes in the compliance rates for required performance evaluations 
from April 2013 to April 2014 for selected agencies. GAO reviewed OFPP 
memos and reports, government-wide guidance, and recent changes to the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation and interviewed an OFPP official. GAO 
also reviewed past performance reporting compliance data for 2013 and 
2014. 

What GAO Found: 

The Office of Federal Procurement Policy's (OFPP) strategy to improve 
the reporting of past performance information relies on increased 
oversight and enhancements to guidance and acquisition regulations. 
Since 2009, OFPP has taken several actions to increase the number and 
quality of past performance submissions available to source selection 
officials, including: 

* emphasizing reporting requirements through memos to agency officials; 
* assessing and reporting on the level of compliance and quality of 
evaluations; 
* directing the development of a compliance tracking tool; 
* setting performance targets for certain agencies; 
* directing the consolidation of systems for entering past performance 
information; and; 
* developing government-wide past performance guidance. 

To implement provisions of the act, OFPP and the Federal Acquisition 
Regulatory Council (FAR Council) worked to enhance requirements for 
assigning responsibility and accountability; implement standards for 
complete evaluations; and ensure submissions are consistent with award 
fee evaluations. Recently, OFPP and the FAR Council revised the 
timelines for the contractor comment process in accordance with the 
2013 statutory requirement. 

Although agencies generally have improved their level of compliance 
with past performance reporting requirements, the rate of compliance 
varies widely by agency and most have not met OFPP targets. For the 
top 10 agencies, based on the number of contracts requiring an 
evaluation, the compliance rate ranged from 13 to 83 percent as of 
April 2014. 

Table: Rate of Compliance with Past Performance Reporting Requirement 
as of April 2013 and April 2014 for Top 10 Agencies Based on Number of 
Evaluations Due: 

Agency: Defense; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 76%; 
April 2014: 83%. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 47%; 
April 2014: 71%. 

Agency: Interior; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 15%; 
April 2014: 51%. 

Agency: Homeland Security; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 34%; 
April 2014: 45%. 

Agency: Justice; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 21%; 
April 2014: 29%. 

Agency: Agriculture; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 13%; 
April 2014: 27%. 

Agency: Veterans Affairs; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 4%; 
April 2014: 25%. 

Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 10%; 
April 2014: 24%. 

Agency: State; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 3%; 
April 2014: 15%. 

Agency: General Services Administration; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 3%; 
April 2014: 13%. 

Agency: Other Agencies; 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 14%; 
April 2014: 25%. 

Total federal government: 
Compliance rate as of: 
April 2013: 32%; 
April 2014: 49%. 

Source: Past Performance Information Retrieval System. GAO-14-707. 

[End of table] 

According to an OFPP official, some agencies placed greater emphasis 
on documenting contractor performance, but workforce shortages and 
work priorities may hinder better compliance. The official said that 
OFPP plans to continue its oversight and provide additional training 
and guidance. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making any recommendations. OFPP concurred with GAO's 
findings. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-707]. For more 
information, contact William T. Woods at (202) 512-4841 or 
woodsw@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

OFPP's Past Performance Strategy Relies on Enhanced Oversight and 
Guidance and Revised Acquisition Regulations: 

Compliance with the Reporting Requirement Varies Greatly by Agency: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Past Performance Policy Guidance and Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) Cases5: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Office of Federal Procurement Policy Annual Past Performance 
Reporting Compliance Targets 7: 

Table 2: Rate of Compliance with Past Performance Reporting 
Requirement as of April 2013 and April 2014 for Top 10 Agencies Based 
on Number of Evaluations Due10: 

Abbreviations: 

CFO: Chief Financial Officer: 

CPARS: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act: 

OFPP: Office of Federal Procurement Policy: 

PPIRS: Past Performance Information Retrieval System: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

August 7, 2014: 

Congressional Committees: 

Government agencies rely on contractors to perform a broad array of 
activities needed to meet their missions. Therefore, complete and 
timely information on contractors' past performance is critical to 
ensure the government does business only with companies that deliver 
quality goods and services on time and within budget. The Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) generally requires agencies to document 
contractor performance on contracts or orders that exceed certain 
dollar thresholds and to make that information available to other 
agencies through a shared government-wide database. We reported in 
2009, however, that there was little information in the past 
performance database to share.[Footnote 1] Agency officials noted at 
the time that a low priority for completing evaluations and a lack of 
system tools and metrics to monitor compliance made it difficult for 
managers to ensure timely completion of contractor performance 
evaluations. 

Section 853 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 
Fiscal Year 2013 required a government-wide strategy to ensure that 
timely, accurate, and complete information on contractor performance 
is included in past performance databases used by executive agencies 
for making source selection decisions.[Footnote 2] The strategy was to 
include standards for timeliness and completeness, assign 
responsibility and management accountability for completeness of past 
performance submissions, and make sure submissions are consistent with 
award fee evaluations. In addition, the contractor comment process was 
also to be revised so that evaluations of contractor past performance 
are posted to the relevant past performance database no more than 14 
days after the information is provided to the contractor.[Footnote 3] 
The act also mandates GAO to report on actions of the Federal 
Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council), chaired by the 
Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in 
the Office of Management and Budget, to implement the required 
provisions, including the extent to which the actions achieved the 
section's objectives.[Footnote 4] For this report, we identified (1) 
OFPP's strategy to improve the number and quality of contractor past 
performance evaluations and implement provisions of section 853 of the 
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, and (2) changes in the compliance rates for 
required performance evaluations from April 2013 to April 2014 for 
selected agencies. 

To identify government-wide actions taken or planned to improve the 
number and quality of contractor past performance evaluations and 
implement provisions of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, we reviewed 
OFPP memoranda and reports to agency senior procurement executives 
related to documenting contractor performance as well as government-
wide guidance and recent changes to the FAR related to documenting 
contractor performance and revising the contractor comment process. 
See Appendix I for a listing of OFPP past performance policy guidance 
and past performance related FAR cases. We also interviewed an OFPP 
official on actions taken or planned and interviewed officials at DOD, 
the largest procuring agency, on their actions taken or planned. To 
identify the changes in compliance rates for required performance 
evaluations for selected agencies, we reviewed compliance metrics from 
the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) as of April 
2014 and compared them to April 2013 metrics. We identified changes in 
the compliance rates for the top 10 agencies based on number of 
evaluations due as of April 2014. To assess the reliability of these 
data, we reviewed system documentation and the programs used to 
generate the compliance metrics, and interviewed officials who manage 
the system. We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the 
purpose of this report. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2014 to August 2014 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

When selecting contractors, the FAR generally requires agencies to 
consider past performance as a factor in most competitive 
procurements.[Footnote 5] During source selection, contracting 
officials often rely on various sources of past performance 
information, such as the prospective contractor's performance on prior 
government or industry contracts for efforts similar to the 
government's requirements, and the past performance information housed 
in the government-wide PPIRS database. 

The FAR generally requires agencies to evaluate the contractor's 
performance on contracts or orders that exceed the simplified 
acquisition threshold at least annually, and at the time the work is 
completed.[Footnote 6] DOD's dollar thresholds are generally higher 
than the simplified acquisition threshold for contractor evaluations, 
which vary based on business sectors.[Footnote 7] To document and 
manage contractor performance information within the agency, DOD has 
used the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 
since 2004. Developed by the Navy, the system incorporates processes 
and procedures for drafting and finalizing evaluations, which are 
described in the CPARS Guide.[Footnote 8] In May 2010, OFPP designated 
CPARS as the single government-wide system for entering evaluations 
and by October 2010 all agencies had transitioned to using CPARS. 

In completing past performance evaluations, the assessing official 
rates the contractor on various elements such as quality of the 
product or service, schedule, cost control, management, and small 
business utilization. For each applicable rating element, the 
assessing official determines a rating based on definitions from the 
CPARS Guide that generally relates to how well the contractor met the 
contract requirements and responded to problems. In addition, for each 
rating element, a narrative is to provide support for the rating 
assigned. 

Once draft evaluations have been completed by the assessing official, 
the contractor is notified that the evaluation is available for review 
and comment through CPARS. After receiving and reviewing a 
contractor's comments and any additional information, the assessing 
official may revise the evaluation and supporting narrative. If there 
is disagreement with the evaluation, the reviewing official--generally 
a government official at a level above the contracting officer--will 
review and finalize the evaluation. 

Section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 
Fiscal Year 2012 required DOD to develop a strategy to ensure that 
evaluations in past performance databases used for making source 
selection decisions are complete, timely, and accurate.[Footnote 9] 
Its contractor comment process was also to be revised so that 
contractor past performance evaluations are posted to the databases 
used for source selection decisions no more than 14 days after the 
performance information is provided to the contractor. In June 2013, 
we reported on the status of DOD's actions to improve the quality and 
timeliness of past performance information and implement provisions of 
the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012.[Footnote 10] 

OFPP's Past Performance Strategy Relies on Enhanced Oversight and 
Guidance and Revised Acquisition Regulations: 

OFPP's strategy to improve past performance information and respond to 
section 853 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 is to increase oversight 
of contractor performance evaluations, develop government-wide past 
performance guidance, and revise the FAR. Since 2009, OFPP has taken a 
number of actions, in conjunction with other organizations, to improve 
the amount and quality of past performance information available, 
including emphasizing reporting requirements; assessing the level of 
compliance and quality of evaluations; developing a compliance 
tracking tool; setting agency performance targets; consolidating 
systems used to enter past performance information; and developing 
government-wide past performance guidance. In addition, OFPP worked 
with the FAR Council to revise the FAR to implement provisions of the 
NDAAs for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 related to assigning 
responsibility and accountability; implementing standards for complete 
evaluations; and ensuring submissions are consistent with award fee 
evaluations. Revisions by OFPP and the FAR Council to the timing of 
the contractor comment process in accordance with the acts became 
effective in July 2014. 

Increased Oversight of Past Performance Evaluations: 

In 2009, the Deputy Administrator of OFPP issued a memorandum to Chief 
Acquisition Officers and Senior Procurement Executives emphasizing 
changes to the FAR such as submitting contractor performance into 
PPIRS and identifying agency officials who must prepare such 
evaluations. In addition, the memo outlined actions that agency 
officials must take to help implement these practices. OFPP also 
announced plans to conduct regular compliance assessments and quality 
reviews to ensure that agencies submit timely performance information 
to PPIRS on required contracts, and provide clear, comprehensive, and 
constructive information useful for making future contract award 
decisions. 

In early 2011, an OFPP review highlighted the need to improve the 
quantity and quality of information in PPIRS. To see how well agencies 
managed their efforts to improve submission of past performance 
evaluations, OFPP assessed the compliance with reporting requirements 
and the quality of evaluations for the ten agencies that do the most 
contracting: 

* OFPP found that agencies generally did not meet the requirement to 
evaluate contractor performance. OFPP's comparison of data from the 
Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation and PPIRS indicated 
that past performance evaluations were completed for only a small 
percentage of contracts requiring an evaluation, especially in 
civilian agencies. 

* To assess the quality of the evaluations, OFPP reviewed a sample to 
see how well various rating elements were addressed. They found the 
evaluations generally lacked sufficient information--such as details 
about how the contractor exceeded expectations or corrected poor 
performance--to support the rating, or did not include a rating for 
all performance areas. 

* To improve the collection of contractor past performance 
information, agencies were asked to review their past performance 
reporting guidance to ensure it contained key characteristics and to 
improve management controls by using several strategies to improve 
compliance and increase the quality of the evaluations. 

* To increase management oversight of contractor performance 
evaluations, OFPP worked with the PPIRS program office to develop a 
compliance tracking tool within PPIRS for measuring and managing 
agency reporting efforts. This was made available to all agencies in 
early 2011. The compliance tool allows managers to monitor compliance 
at the department, agency, or contracting office level. In addition, 
the tool allows agency officials to identify the compliance of 
specific contracts or orders that meet the reporting criteria. 

In March 2013, OFPP issued a policy memo to establish annual past 
performance reporting compliance targets for Chief Financial Officer 
(CFO) Act agencies.[Footnote 11] In establishing these targets, OFPP 
reviewed the compliance rates of agencies and found that the level of 
compliance varied widely. In order to make the compliance targets 
realistic and achievable, OFPP set differing fiscal year 2013 and 2014 
targets by agency based on the agency's level of compliance at the end 
of fiscal year 2012, with the expectation that all agencies will reach 
full compliance by the end of fiscal year 2015, as shown in table 1. 

Table 1: Office of Federal Procurement Policy Annual Past Performance 
Reporting Compliance Targets: 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance above 60%: 85%; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance between 30% and 
60%: 75%; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance below 30%: 65%. 

Fiscal year: 2014; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance above 60%: 95%; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance between 30% and 
60%: 90%; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance below 30%: 80%. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance above 60%: 100%; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance between 30% and 
60%: 100%; 
Target for agencies with fiscal year 2012 compliance below 30%: 100%. 

Source: Office of Federal Procurement Policy Memo, March 6, 2013. 
GAO-14-707. 

[End of table] 

To assist CFO Act agencies in meeting these annual targets, the policy 
memo required that all of them establish their past performance 
reporting baselines, and set aggressive quarterly targets that reflect 
a strategy for meeting the annual performance targets. The memo also 
highlighted training opportunities for agencies' acquisition 
workforces on documenting contractor performance. 

Government-Wide Past Performance Guidance and Revisions to the FAR 
Address Statutory Requirements: 

OFPP has also sought to improve contractor performance information and 
implement provisions of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 by working with 
the General Services Administration's Integrated Award Environment, 
the CPARS program office, and the FAR Council to consolidate systems 
for entering past performance information and to develop government-
wide past performance guidance, enhance FAR requirements, and change 
the contractor comment process. To standardize the past performance 
documentation process, the OFPP Administrator identified CPARS as the 
government-wide system for collecting contractor performance 
information, and by October 2010 agencies using other systems 
transitioned to CPARS. We previously reported that the various systems 
used to collect past performance information and the lack of 
standardized evaluation factors and rating scales limited the 
usefulness of the information in PPIRS.[Footnote 12] Because the CPARS 
Policy Guide was specific to DOD, the OFPP worked with the Integrated 
Award Environment, the CPARS program office, and an interagency 
working group to update the guide. A government-wide CPARS Guide was 
released in November 2012.[Footnote 13] In addition, OFPP worked with 
the FAR Council to revise the FAR in September 2013 to enhance various 
elements of documenting contractor performance and implement 
provisions of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 and the NDAA for Fiscal 
Year 2012. The FAR was revised and the CPARS Guide was updated to 
implement these acts as follows: 

* Standards for timeliness: The FAR does not include a timeframe for 
completing evaluations. However, the CPARS Guide includes a standard 
that evaluations should be completed within 120 days after the end of 
the evaluation period. 

* Standards for completeness: Evaluation factors for each assessment 
must include, at a minimum: quality of product or service; cost 
control (where applicable); schedule/timeliness; management or 
business relations; and small business subcontracting (where 
applicable), and other (for example, late payments or nonpayment to 
subcontractors or tax delinquency). 

* Assigning responsibility for completeness of evaluations: The 
requirement that agency procedures identify roles and responsibilities 
was expanded to include preparing and reviewing evaluations. Also, the 
FAR now provides a default that the contracting officer is responsible 
for completing evaluations if agency procedures do not specify that 
role. 

* Management accountability: Agencies are required to evaluate 
compliance and assign responsibility and management accountability for 
completeness of performance submissions. 

* Ensuring past performance submissions are consistent with award fee 
evaluations: Award and incentive fee evaluations and adjectival 
ratings are to be included as part of the past performance evaluations. 

OFPP, in conjunction with the FAR Council, recently implemented 
provisions of the acts related to changing the timing for obtaining 
contractor comments. Previously, contractors were allowed a minimum of 
30 days to provide comments, rebuttals, or additional information. On 
May 30, 2014, the final rule changing the contractor comment process 
was issued with an effective date of July 1, 2014.[Footnote 14] The 
rule provides that contractors will have no more than 14 days from the 
date of notification of the availability of the evaluation to provide 
comments, rebuttals, or other information before the evaluation is 
posted to PPIRS, where it is available government-wide for source 
selection purposes for 3 years after the contract performance 
completion date.[Footnote 15] When a contractor cannot meet this 
deadline, its comments will be added to the evaluation after it has 
moved into PPIRS, as well as any agency review of the comments. 

Compliance with the Reporting Requirement Varies Greatly by Agency: 

Although agencies have generally improved their level of compliance 
with the reporting requirements over the last year, that rate varies 
greatly by agency and most have not met the targets set by OFPP. As 
shown in table 2, all of the top 10 agencies, based on number of 
contracts or orders with an evaluation due in PPIRS, showed 
improvement in reporting compliance from 2013 to 2014, but the 
compliance rate varied from 13 percent to 83 percent as of April 2014. 
According to OFPP's annual reporting performance targets, as shown in 
table 1, all CFO Act agencies should have been at least 65 percent 
compliant by the end of fiscal year 2013, but only two of the top 10 
agencies were above 65 percent compliance as of April 2014. 

Table 2: Rate of Compliance with Past Performance Reporting 
Requirement as of April 2013 and April 2014 for Top 10 Agencies Based 
on Number of Evaluations Due: 

Agency: Defense[C]; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 76%; 
April 2014[B]: 83%. 

Agency: Treasury; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 47%; 
April 2014[B]: 71%. 

Agency: Interior; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 15%; 
April 2014[B]: 51%. 

Agency: Homeland Security; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 34%; 
April 2014[B]: 45%. 

Agency: Justice; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 21%; 
April 2014[B]: 29%. 

Agency: Agriculture; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 13%; 
April 2014[B]: 27%. 

Agency: Veterans Affairs; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 4%; 
April 2014[B]: 25%. 

Agency: Health and Human Services; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 10%; 
April 2014[B]: 24%. 

Agency: State; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 3%; 
April 2014[B]: 15%. 

Agency: General Services Administration; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 3%; 
April 2014[B]: 13%. 

Agency: Other Agencies; 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 14%; 
April 2014[B]: 25%. 

Total federal government: 
Compliance rate as of[A]: 
April 2013: 32%; 
April 2014[B]: 49%. 

Source: Past Performance Information Retrieval System compliance tool. 
GAO-14-707. 

[A] Compliance is based on cumulative contracts or orders that should 
have an evaluation in PPIRS at a point in time. The Departments of 
Homeland Security and State have deviations from the simplified 
acquisition reporting threshold, and other departments and agencies 
may have additional exceptions to the reporting requirement, that are 
not reflected in the PPIRS compliance metrics. 

[B] Methodological changes between the two periods may account for 
some of the change in compliance rate. For example, in late fiscal 
year 2013, AbilityOne contracts were no longer counted in PPIRS as 
requiring an assessment for civilian agencies. In addition, there were 
changes that affected the number of evaluations due from the General 
Services Administration. 

[C] Department of Defense compliance is based on dollar thresholds 
that are generally higher than the simplified acquisition threshold. 

[End of table] 

According to an OFPP official, some agencies placed greater emphasis 
on improving timely reporting and have increased their management 
oversight, issued guidance, diligently monitored compliance, and 
frequently conduct internal meetings with management and accountable 
staff about reporting activity and responsibilities. However, the 
official noted that some agencies report workforce shortages, work 
priorities, and time constraints as hindering better compliance. Some 
contracting officers also reported that they had difficulty in 
obtaining timely feedback from other parts of the acquisition 
workforce so that they could complete the evaluation due to shifting 
workloads, retirements, and relocations. 

The OFPP official stated the office plans to continue its efforts to 
improve past performance information and strengthen reporting 
compliance, by taking the following actions: 

* collaborating with agency senior procurement executives to increase 
management oversight and leadership; 

* working with the FAR Council on the development of additional 
regulatory guidance, as necessary, to standardize reporting practices 
and improve agency consideration of past performance information; 

* directing the Federal Acquisition Institute to develop useful 
training aids to ensure agencies know how to consider performance 
information prior to contract award and rate a contractor's 
performance during the post-award process; 

* overseeing the General Services Administration's Integrated Award 
Environment on system enhancements to ensure agencies have a practical 
reporting tool with useful performance metrics to manage and monitor 
not only reporting compliance but also quality reporting of 
performance information; and: 

* conducting outreach with internal and external stakeholders to 
garner their thoughts on ways to improve past performance information 
reporting. 

Agency Comments: 

We are not making recommendations in this report. We requested 
comments on a draft of this report from OFPP and DOD. On July 24, 
2014, an OFPP Procurement Policy Analyst provided comments by e-mail. 
OFPP concurred with the findings of the draft report, and provided 
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOD also 
provided technical comments by e-mail, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. 

We are sending this report to appropriate congressional committees, 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of 
Defense, and other interested parties. The report will also be 
available at no charge at the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. LaTonya Miller, Assistant Director; 
Julia Kennon; Robert Swierczek; Bradley Terry; and Alyssa Weir made 
key contributions to this report. 

Signed by: 

William T. Woods: 
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

List of Committees: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable James M. Inhofe: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Robert Menendez: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Bob Corker: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Relations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Thomas Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Coburn: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Dick Durbin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Thad Cochran: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Howard P. "Buck" McKeon: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Adam Smith: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Edward R. Royce: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Foreign Affairs: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Darrell Issa: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Pete Visclosky: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Past Performance Policy Guidance and Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) Cases: 

Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Past Performance Policy 
Guidance: 

Over the past five years, OFPP has issued additional policy guidance 
to strengthen agency use of past performance information and improve 
agency reporting compliance and documentation. 

Making Better Use of Contractor Performance Information (July 10, 
2014): Enhances agencies' use of performance information when making 
source selection decisions on high-risk programs, major acquisitions, 
and other complex contract actions by directing agencies to conduct 
additional research and outreach to make more informed decisions, 
including obtaining as much relevant and recent performance 
information about a contractor's performance beyond what is in the 
Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). [hyperlink, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/makin
g-better-use-of-contractor-performance-information.pdf]. 

Improving the Collection and Use of Information about Contractor 
Performance and Integrity (March 6, 2013): Requested agencies to: (1) 
establish a baseline for reporting compliance, (2) set aggressive 
performance targets that agencies can use to monitor and measure 
reporting compliance, and (3) ensure the workforce is trained to 
properly report and use this information to improve the collection and 
use of performance and integrity information. [hyperlink, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/impro
ving-the-collection-and-use-of-information-about-contractor-
performance-and-integrity.pdf]. 

Improving Contractor Past Performance Assessments: Summary of the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy's Review, and Strategies for 
Improvement (January 21, 2011): Included OFPP's initial assessment of 
agencies' reporting of contractor performance information and 
additional steps and strategies for improving the collection of past 
performance information. [hyperlink, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/contract_p
erf/PastPerformanceMemo-21-Jan-2011.pdf]. 

Improving the Use of Contractor Performance Information (July 29, 
2009): Described new FAR requirements to strengthen the use of 
contractor performance information, included agency management 
responsibilities to support robust implementation, and established 
OFPP's review process for evaluating agencies' reporting of contractor 
performance information. [hyperlink, 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/procurement/imp
roving_use_of_contractor_perf_info.pdf]. 

Recent Past Performance Related FAR Cases: 

The FAR Council, chaired by the Administrator of OFPP, has recently 
amended the FAR to strengthen the collection of contractor past 
performance information, including: 

FAR Case 2012-028, Contractor Comment Period, Past Performance 
Evaluations: Implements section 806(c) the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81 
(2011) and section 853(c) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. 
No. 112-239. The final rule provides that contractors will have no 
more than 14 days from the date of notification of the availability of 
the evaluation to provide comments, rebuttals, or other information 
before the evaluation is posted to PPIRS. The final rule was published 
in the Federal Register on May 30, 2014, at 79 Fed. Reg. 31,197, and 
was effective July 1, 2014. 

FAR Case 2012-009, Documenting Contractor Performance: Implements 
parts of section 806 of NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81, 
and establishes standards of completeness of past performance 
evaluations, strengthens assignment of responsibility and management 
accountability for submitting assessments, and requires that past 
performance submissions include incentive/award fee information, where 
appropriate. This rule also incorporates certain requirements from 
section 853 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239. 
This final rule was published in the Federal Register on August 1, 
2013, at 78 Fed. Reg. 46,783 and was effective on September 3, 2013. 

FAR Cases 2008-016, Termination for Default Reporting: Establishes 
procedures for contracting officers to provide contractor information, 
such as terminations for cause or default and defective cost or 
pricing data, into PPIRS and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 
Information System module within PPIRS. This final rule was published 
in the Federal Register on September 29, 2010, at 75 Fed. Reg. 60,258, 
and effective October 29, 2010. 

FAR Case 2008-027, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 
Information System: Amends the FAR to implement the Federal Awardee 
Performance and Integrity Information System. The system is designed 
to significantly enhance the Government's ability to evaluate the 
business ethics and quality of prospective contractors competing for 
Federal contracts and to protect taxpayers from doing business with 
contractors that are not responsible sources. This final rule was 
published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2010, at 75 Fed. Reg. 
14,059, and was effective April 22, 2010. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Federal Contractors: Better Performance Information Needed to 
Support Agency Contract Award Decisions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-374] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 
2009). 

[2] Pub. L. No. 112-239. 

[3] Previously, contractors were allowed a minimum of 30 days to 
provide comments, rebuttals, or additional information. 

[4] The act also required that we assess the extent to which the 
strategy developed pursuant to the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 was 
consistent with the strategy to be developed by DOD under the NDAA for 
Fiscal Year 2012. In 2013, we reported on DOD's strategy to improve 
the quality and timeliness of past performance information and 
implement provisions of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012. GAO, Contractor 
Performance: DOD Actions to Improve the Reporting of Past Performance 
Information, GAO 13 589 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2013). Because the 
FAR Council did not develop a written strategy to implement the NDAA 
for Fiscal Year 2013, for this report we reviewed the various actions 
taken by OFPP, the FAR Council, and other relevant parties to address 
the requirements of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013. The FAR Council and 
OFPP worked with DOD in the implementation of the NDAA requirements 
for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013, and we found that the actions taken to 
implement these requirements were generally consistent. 

[5] Past performance must be considered in selecting contractors for 
negotiated competitive procurements expected to exceed the simplified 
acquisition threshold, unless the contracting officer documents the 
reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for 
the acquisition. FAR § 15.304(c)(3). Evaluation of past performance, 
for example, may not be appropriate in a "lowest price, technically 
acceptable" source selection. FAR §15.101-2(b)(1). 

[6] FAR § 42.1502(a) and (b). Currently, the dollar threshold for 
simplified acquisitions, with limited exceptions, is $150,000. FAR § 
2.101. The FAR has separate assessment thresholds of $650,000 and 
$30,000 for construction and architect-engineer services contracts 
respectively. FAR § 42.1502(e) and (f). 

[7] DOD contracting activities are required to prepare an evaluation 
of contractor performance for each contract expected to exceed $5 
million for systems and operations support; $1 million for services 
and information technology; and $500,000 for ship repair and overhaul. 

[8] Both CPARS and PPIRS are managed and maintained by the DOD's Naval 
Sea Logistics Center Portsmouth but are government-wide systems under 
the direction of the General Services Administration's Integrated 
Award Environment. 

[9] Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 806 (2011). 

[10] GAO, Contractor Performance: DOD Actions to Improve the Reporting 
of Past Performance Information, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-589] (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 
2013). 

[11] Chief Financial Officer Act agencies are defined in 31 U.S.C. § 
901(b). While only CFO Act agencies are required to meet the targets 
above, small agencies are encouraged to establish targets and 
strategies as well. 

[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-374] (Washington, 
D.C.: Apr. 23, 2009). 

[13] The guidance is non-regulatory in nature and intended to provide 
useful information and best practices to the workforce for using CPARS. 

[14] 79 Fed. Reg. 31,197 (May 30, 2014). 

[15] Agencies shall use the past performance information in PPIRS that 
is within three years (six for construction and architect-engineer 
contracts) of the completion of performance of the evaluated contract 
or order. FAR § 42.1503(g). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]