US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Mr. Daniel Carrasco Chief, Contracting Division USACE – LA District 13 OCT 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Joint Contingency Contracting
Advertisements

May Defines Multiple Award Contract (JA §1311) multiple award IDIQ contract entered into under 41 USC 253h- 253k any other multiple award IDIQ.
Defense Contract Management Agency Quality Assurance Directorate Presented By: Michael Shields Executive Director, Quality Assurance March 15 th, 2011.
Overview of New Rules Keith Waye Government Contracting Small Business Administration.
Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) Overview J. Lisa Romney Defense Procurement & Acquisition Policy.
CENTRAL CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION (CAGE CODES) DFARS Case 2003-D040 DFARS Parts 204, 212, 213 and 252 are amended to remove policy on Central Contractor.
Naval Sea Logistics Center Welcome to ACASS/CCASS/CPARS Focal Point Training ACASS/CCASS/CPARS Focal Point Training.
BUILDING STRONG ® Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System Changes to Contractor Performance Evaluations 1 Ian Mitchell, PE, LEED AP BD+C Chief,
National Health Policy Forum William Winkenwerder, Jr., M.D. Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) January 28, 2004.
Congress and Contractor Personal Conflicts of Interest May 21, 2008 Jon Etherton Etherton and Associates, Inc.
ACASS BUILDING STRONG Rosemary Gilbertson
US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® SAME “Meet the Chiefs” Mike Pearson Procurement Analyst Northwestern Division Regional Contracting Office.
Quality Management Systems
Configuration Management
Top Tactics for Maximizing GMP Compliance in Blue Mountain RAM Jake Jacanin, Regional Sales Manager September 18, 2013.
Naval Organization Chapter 6 BMR
Procurement Engineering and Review Team (PERT) PEER REVIEW PROGRAM Patrick Marmo 2/7/2012 Independent Peer Review Program for Contractor’s Purchasing Systems.
Peer Reviews. 2  Strengths and/or Best Practices across multiple Sites ◦ Internal customers involved in Acq. Planning (3) ◦ Leveraging buying power.
Maureen B. Higgins Assistant Director, Agency Support & Technical Assistance Office of Personnel Management December 8, 2010.
DoD Acquisition Domain (Sourcing) (DADS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) E-Business/SPS Joint Users’ Conference November 15-19, 2004 Houston, TX.
Federal Cyber Policy and Assurance Issues Dwayne Ramsey Computer Protection Program Manager Berkeley Lab Cyber Security Summit September 27, 2004.
Important acronyms AO = authorizing official ISO = information system owner CA = certification agent.
NMS Certification and Accreditation (C&A) Removal of Material Weakness for NMS Security and Access Controls Jim Craft USAID ISSO.
Sysoft eRFP Group Decision Support System. eRFP is flexible and productive Every RFP is different Agencies have somewhat different processes Procurement.
1 Personnel Security 2007 Data Protection Seminar TMA Privacy Office HEALTH AFFAIRS TRICARE Management Activity.
COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS
NAVAL CORRESPONDENCE Topic TERMINAL OBJECTIVES 31.0 Identify the proper format and purpose of Naval Correspondence to include the use of Standard.
Creator: ACSession No: 16 Slide No: 1Reviewer: SS CSE300Advanced Software EngineeringFebruary 2006 (Software Quality) Configuration Management CSE300 Advanced.
1.  Describe an overall framework for project integration management ◦ RelatIion to the other project management knowledge areas and the project life.
CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System Suzanne Sierra Procurement Analyst, 210.M NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
NDIA Small Business Workshop 26 Aug 05 Presented by Leona Fitzpatrick HQ AFSPC/MSKM Small Business.
2 William P. McNally Assistant Administrator for Procurement NASA Procurement Tenets August 4, 2008 NCMA Conference.
Office of Management and Budget NDIA Program Management Systems Committee May 3, 2005 EVMS Compliance Requirements David Muzio.
Federal Aviation Administration By: Giles Strickler, UCS Program Manager Procurement Policy (AJA-A11) Date:September 22, 2010 Unified Contracting System.
1 NDIA Earned Value Management Application Guide Status Report August 16-17, 2005 Wayne Abba Walt Berkey David Muzio David Treacy NDIA EVM Application.
M ONITOR & C ONTROL Focus is on Integrated Change Control 1.
1 Felisha Hitt, Senior Procurement Analyst March 18, 2008 Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Systems Accreditation Berkeley County School District School Facilitator Training October 7, 2014 Dr. Rodney Thompson Superintendent.
Contracting with CMS and other Federal Agencies CMS Industry Day October 30, 2015 Anita Allen, Small Business Specialist and Claude Cable, SBA Procurement.
08/20/ Welcome to Overview.
Effectively Integrating Information Technology (IT) Security into the Acquisition Process A course for the Department of Commerce contracting and contracting.
10/20/ Welcome to Overview for Grants.
Independent Expert Program Review (IEPR) February 2006.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR ’ S TASK FORCE ON CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT REVIEW Report Overview PD Customer Forum September 2002.
1 NASA Office of Procurement NASA Procurement Tenets April 15, 2008 SMC Brief Bill McNally Assistant Administrator for Procurement.
U.S. Department of Agriculture eGovernment Program eDeployment Kickoff August 26, 2003.
Donna M. Jenkins, Director National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Use Of Past Performance Information June 10, 2014 William P.
1 Overview of the NF 1680 Evaluation of Performance Process Overview/Training Charts April 7, 2008.
Report Performance Monitor & Control Risk Administer Procurement MONITORING & CONTROLLING PROCESS.
DoD Qualification Program Update 2004 DoD Standardization Conference March 17, 2004 Briefer: Donna McMurry, DSPO.
Important acronyms AO = authorizing official ISO = information system owner CA = certification agent.
410th CSB 410 th COR Training CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System.
Department of Defense Voluntary Protection Programs Center of Excellence Development, Validation, Implementation and Enhancement for a Voluntary Protection.
Don’t Forget to Phone In! Pass Code: Past Performance Information Retrieval System – Statistical Reporting.
Small Business and Subcontracting. Subcontracting for Small Business 6 steps to successful subcontracting 6. Report Contractor performance 1. Consider.
Evaluating Small Business Participation
Software Project Configuration Management
Administrivia Settings Controls Attendees Record
Post Award Peer Review Briefing Slides
Improving Mission Effectiveness By Exploiting the Command’s Implementation Of the DoD Enterprise Services Management Framework - DESMF in the [name the.
Quality Management Systems
Enterprise Content Management Owners Representative Contract Approval
PRODUCT EVALUATION & TESTING BRANCH SUPPLIER SUPPORT DIVISION II
Contractor Performance Assessment Retrieval System
IS4550 Security Policies and Implementation
Workshop Session I.
Independent Expert Program Review (IEPR)
USACE infrastructure team update
System Safety Regulation
Post Award Peer Review Briefing Slides
Presentation transcript:

US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Mr. Daniel Carrasco Chief, Contracting Division USACE – LA District 13 OCT 2015

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHER  Background  Purpose  Business Sectors and Thresholds  CPARS Evaluation Methodolgy  CPARS Roles  CPARS Workflow  Contractor Representative CommentsAGENDA 2

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHERBackground  The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contractor performance information be collected (FAR Part 42) and used in source selection evaluations (FAR Part 15).  In October 2004, the Department of Defense (DoD) Business Transformation Agency (BTA) was established to manage DoD’s e- business enterprise solutions, including the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).  On December 17, 2004, the DoD Acquisition Technology and Logistics Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy office designated CPARS as the Department’s solution for collecting contractor performance information  The CPARS process establishes procedures for the collection and use of Past Performance Information (PPI)

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHERPurpose  CPARS collects contractor performance information and passes it to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Government wide performance information repository where it can be retrieved by Federal Government Agencies including the DoD Services.  CPARS-generated PPI is one of the tools used to communicate contractor strengths and weaknesses to source selection officials and Contracting Officers  CPARS should be an objective report of the performance during a period against the contract requirements  Usage of the automated CPARS collection capability is aimed at reducing reliance on paper, improving the business process, and being more efficient  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.

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHER Business Sectors and Thresholds  Systems > $5,000,000  Non-Systems Operations Support >$5,000,000 Services >$1,000,000 Information Technology >$1,000,000 Ship Repair and Overhaul >$150,000 Health Care >$150,000 Fuels >$150,000 Unique Business Sectors Architect-Engineering Services > $30,000 Construction > $650,000 Science and Technology: No dollar Threshold (ALL)

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHER CPAR Evaluation Methodolgy  It is of the utmost importance that the Assessing Official (AO) submits a rating consistent with the definitions of each rating and thoroughly describes the circumstances surrounding a rating.  Each assessment must be based on objective data (or measurable, subjective data when objective data is not available) supportable by program and contract management records. The following sources of data are recommended: Contractor operations reviews Status and progress reviews Production and management reviews Management and engineering process reviews (e.g. risk management, requirements management, etc.) Cost performance reports and other cost and schedule metrics Other program measures and metrics such as: o Measures of progress and status of critical resources Systems engineering and other technical progress reviews Technical interchange meetings Physical and functional configuration audits Quality reviews and quality assurance evaluations Functional performance evaluations Earned contract incentives

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHER Roles  Assessing Official 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. The AOR must be a Government employee.  Assessing Official (AO): The AO is responsible for overall program execution and is responsible for preparing reviewing, signing, and processing the CPAR.  Designated Contractor Representative: The contractor shall designate representatives to whom the evaluations will be sent automatically and electronically  Reviewing Official (RO): The RO provides the check-and-balance when there is disagreement between the AO and the contractor. The RO must review and sign the assessment when the contractor indicates non- concurrence with the CPAR. The RO must be a Government employee.

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHER CPARS Workflow

BUILDING STRONG ®

Assessing Official’s Comments

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHER Contractor Representative Comments

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHER Reviewing Official’s Comments

BUILDING STRONG ® - TOGETHERQuestions