|
|
|
HOME | CONTENTS | DISCUSSIONS | DISCUSSION ARCHIVES | BLOG | QUICK-KITs| STATES |
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS Subtitle A--Acquisition Policy and Management |
|
P. L. 112- |
House Conference Report 112-329 |
SEC. 806. INCLUSION OF DATA ON CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE IN PAST PERFORMANCE DATABASES FOR SOURCE SELECTION DECISIONS. (a) Strategy on Inclusion Required- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall develop a strategy for ensuring that timely, accurate, and complete information on contractor performance is included in past performance databases used for making source selection decisions. (b) Elements- The strategy required by subsection (a) shall, at a minimum-- (1) establish standards for the timeliness and completeness of past performance submissions for purposes of databases described in subsection (a); (2) assign responsibility and management accountability for the completeness of past performance submissions for such purposes; and (3) ensure that past performance submissions for such purposes are consistent with award fee evaluations in cases where such evaluations have been conducted. (c) Contractor Comments- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall revise the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to require the following: (1) That affected contractors are provided, in a timely manner, information on contractor performance to be included in past performance databases in accordance with subsection (a). (2) That such contractors are afforded up to 14 calendar days, from the date of delivery of the information provided in accordance with paragraph (1), to submit comments, rebuttals, or additional information pertaining to past performance for inclusion in such databases. (3) That agency evaluations of contractor past performance, including any information submitted under paragraph (2), are included in the relevant past performance database not later than the date that is 14 days after the date of delivery of the information provided in accordance with paragraph (1). (d) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a contractor from submitting comments, rebuttals, or additional information pertaining to past performance after the period described in paragraph (2) has elapsed or to prohibit a contractor from challenging a past performance evaluation in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, or procedures. (e) Comptroller General Report- Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the actions taken by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics pursuant to this section, including an assessment of the extent to which such actions have achieved the objectives of this section. |
Inclusion of data on contractor
performance in past performance databases for source selection
decisions (sec. 806)
The Senate amendment contained a provision (sec. 821) that would require the Department of Defense to develop a strategy for ensuring that timely, accurate, and complete information on contractor performance is included in past performance databases used for making source selection decisions. The House bill contained no similar provision. The House recedes with an amendment requiring that contractors be provided up to 2 weeks to respond to past performance information before it is included in the database. Nothing in the provision would preclude contractors from providing comments, or otherwise challenging the information, after the 2 week period has expired and the information has been posted. |
Inclusion of data on contractor performance
in past performance databases for source selection decisions
(sec. 821) The committee recommends a provision that would require the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to develop a strategy for ensuring that timely, accurate, and complete information on contractor performance is included in past performance databases used for making source selection decisions. The provision would also require the Under Secretary to revise the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to provide for agency evaluations of contractor performance to be included immediately in past performance databases, rather than waiting for contractor comment, rebuttal, and challenge, as provided in the existing regulations. The same approach to contractor comments was adopted in section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), which established the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System. A January 2011, memorandum from the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy highlighted the `need to improve the quantity and quality of information available [in past performance databases] so that source selection officials have greater confidence in the reliability and relevance of the information there.' The memorandum reported that the Department of Defense (DOD) submitted past performance evaluations on only about half of eligible contract awards. Those assessments that DOD did submit adequately addressed quality and schedule issues only about half the time, and adequately addressed cost control issues only 20 percent of the time. The February 2011, Interim Report of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan found that agency failure to record contractor performance assessments in official databases in a timely manner increases the risk of agencies' awarding contracts to habitual poor performers. The report states: `Federal past-performance policy provides for a lengthy comment, rebuttal, and review process, in which government officials and contractors record their database input sequentially. To avoid the delays these policies and procedures can create, government officials sometimes make an unduly generous assessment--or no assessment at all--of the true quality of contractors' performance.' |