I wrote earlier about the restriction on the number of experience examples a large business mentor can provide. Well, NITAAC has listened! OK, they probably weren’t listening directly to me, but let me have this one, alright. CIO-SP4 has been amended to allow large business mentors to contribute two examples of corporate experience per task area.Continue reading
The CIO-SP4 is a big deal for many small and large federal contractors. And lately it’s been a bit of a moving target as to how NITAAC will evaluate the experience of companies working together in prime-sub, mentor-protégé, and joint-venture relationships. We wrote about some of the issues with past performance and other recent changes. One change that caught my eye puts a restriction on the number of experience examples a large business mentor can provide. But should it?Continue reading
Last night, NITAAC released Amendment 4 to the CIO-SP4 RFP. The amendment removes the language expressly restricting the use of first-tier subcontractors past performance, capabilities, and experience, which was previously added by Amendment 3. Let’s take a closer look.Continue reading
Among some contractors, it’s taken as an article of faith that even a single negative Contractor Performance Assessment Report will effectively preclude the contractor from winning new government work.
While it’s undoubtedly true, in my opinion, that some Contracting Officers place too much emphasis on a single less-than-perfect CPAR, it’s also true that a contractor with multiple negative CPARs can still win government contracts, so long as the government reasonably believes that the contractor can successfully perform the new work. Case in point: a recent GAO bid protest decision upholding an award to a company with nine (count ’em!) recent, relevant and negative CPARs.Continue reading
One of my major concerns with the draft solicitation for the CIO-SP4 GWAC was the limited nature of the past performance NITAAC intended to consider. Under the draft RFP, NITAAC would not have considered the past performance of subcontractors–something I believed violated 13 C.F.R. 125.2(g) in certain cases, and was contrary to the guidance of FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), which says that agencies “should” consider the past performance of “subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.”
The good news is that the final CIO-SP4 RFP fixes this problem. That’s a relief for a lot of potential offerors. But now I’m concerned that NITAAC went too far in the other direction!Continue reading
In a recent decision, GAO said that it is not the contracting agency’s job to play investigator when it comes to publicly available negative past performance information. GAO acknowledged that there may be certain situations where the agency is required to consider such information that it is aware of during its evaluation. But according to GAO, this denied protest involved no such situation.Continue reading
The government’s hard shift away from lowest-price, technically acceptable evaluations has magnified the importance of past performance in many competitive acquisitions. For start-ups and other companies new to the federal marketplace, past performance requirements can present a significant barrier to success.
Oftentimes, companies with little or no past performance of their own can offer the past performance of another entity, such as a subcontractor or joint venture partner. But the rules surrounding the use of another entity’s past performance are often misunderstood–and recently, the rules have evolved quickly.
Here are five things you should know about using the past performance of a subcontractor, joint venture partner, or affiliate.Continue reading