1. Contract Administrators’ and Purchasing Directors’ Meeting January 12, 2006

2. 2 Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting January 12, 2006 Agenda MyFloridaMarketPlace update OPPAGA survey update Agency feedback on new website Update on VPT testing and launch Best Practices – Past performance information Future direction / Next meeting

3. 3 MyFloridaMarketPlace Update Welcome Rachael Grumme from DOT; reviewing candidates for other two positions Jan 17-19 – Ariba public sector user group meeting Jan 24 – Master Agreement focus group meeting Jan 26 – Invoicing focus group meeting Feb 8 – User group meeting at DEP

4. 4 Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting January 12, 2006 Agenda MyFloridaMarketPlace update OPPAGA survey update Agency feedback on new website Update on VPT testing and launch Best Practices – Past performance information Future direction / Next meeting

5. 5 Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting January 12, 2006 Agenda MyFloridaMarketPlace update OPPAGA survey update Agency feedback on new website Update on VPT testing and launch Best Practices – Past performance information Future direction / Next meeting

6. 6 Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting January 12, 2006 Agenda MyFloridaMarketPlace update OPPAGA survey update Agency feedback on new website Update on VPT testing and launch Best Practices – Past performance information Future direction / Next meeting

7. 7 Vendor Performance Tracking User Acceptance Testing Representatives from DOR, DJJ, HSMV, DOH, DOT, DMS received training and used the system and were asked: Did the system work? That is, did you get email requesting a rating after approving a receiving report or invoice, did you understand the scoring concept, were you able to perform the rating when you clicked the link in the email, and were you able to see the scores of vendors who were rated? Is the system user friendly, i.e. prompts and fields are understandable, process moves quickly, etc.? Is the system useful, i.e. as vendor scores and ratings are accumulated, can you see how the information would be useful to your agency? Comments/recommendations on the testing experience

8. 8 Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting January 12, 2006 Agenda MyFloridaMarketPlace update OPPAGA survey update Agency feedback on new website Update on VPT testing and launch Best Practices – Past performance information Future direction / Next meeting

9. 9 RoadMap to Excellence Findings re: Vendor Monitoring and Rating Systems for properly monitoring and rating vendor performance are inadequate or non-existent. [T]here is no uniform requirement in Florida law for an agency to monitor the performance of its contractual service providers or prepare a closeout document to rate vendors’ performance. [T]here is no requirement for prospective procurers to consider other agencies’ prior experience with a vendor. Consequently, vendors with inadequate performance may receive additional contracts because there is no system to capture performance results and incorporate these results into the selection process. [A] system of rating contractors on previous contract performance would ensure that the contractor’s performance history is known and is considered during the bid evaluation process.

10. 10 Past Performance Information Clean Harbors Decision What was going on in this matter? What could the contract administrator have done differently? What could the procurement staff have done differently? Does the decision make sense? Did it reach the right result?

11. 11 Past Performance Information Best Practices Development and Resources Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 signaled a “sea change” – past performance evaluation required for all competitively negotiated acquisitions over $100,000 OFPP, A Guide to Best Practices for Past Performance (Interim ed. May 1995) OFPP/OMB, Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance Information (May 2000) http://www.acqnet.gov/Library/OFFP/BestPractices

12. 12 Past Performance Information Federal Contracting Officer Concerns Past performance and quality certifications are not perfect predictors Past performance and quality certifications do not always apply Past performance is not always a discriminator in source selections Giving a contractor a poor evaluation can lead to legal action against the Government raters

13. 13 Past Performance Information Federal Suggested Rating System Assessment Areas –Quality –Timeliness –Cost Control –Business Relations Performance Ratings –Exceptional (5) –Very Good (4) –Satisfactory (3) –Marginal (2) –Unsatisfactory (1)

14. 14 Past Performance Information Acquisition Team’s Homework Track and document contract performance closely Read and understand the contractor’s cost, schedule, and performance reporting data Know how well the contractor is meeting its other contract requirements, i.e., socio-economic Know if the Government contributed to performance problems Actively work to eliminate Government roadblocks to excellent performance Document discussions (needn’t always be “formal” evaluations, but must be able to track steps taken to improve performance) Recognize successful efforts to improve performance

15. 15 Past Performance Information Using as Source Selection Factor “Past performance can and should be used to do more than just help the Government decide whether a contractor is capable of performing.”

16. 16 Past Performance Information Using as Source Selection Factor “Past performance can and should be used to do more than just help the Government decide whether a contractor is capable of performing.” “The Government must also compare the past track records of competing offerors to help identify which one offers the best relative value in order to get the best deal for the taxpayer.” “Using past performance as an evaluation factor to rank an otherwise responsible contractor for award of a contract is not, therefore, part of the responsibility determination.”

17. 17 Past Performance as Selection Factor Key Points for the Solicitation Agency should establish a clear relationship among the statement of work, proposal instructions, and evaluation criteria Contractors should provide references Contractors should be encouraged to discuss any negative performance issues and corrective actions taken Government must include the method of evaluating the information and its relevancy, and the relative rank or applicable weight assigned to current and past performance –At least 25% recommended, but less is appropriate if market research reveals not a meaningful discriminator You can only evaluate what you told the contractor you would evaluate. Therefore, be very clear in the solicitation!

18. 18 Past Performance as Selection Factor Proposal Instructions Tailor the requirements to reflect complexity Get references - 5 to 10 specific contracts (not more than 3 years old) and a list of contact names and addresses for each reference Limit contractor’s ability to “cherry pick” Provide opportunity to discuss problems Consider similar non-agency contracts (opportunity for new firms) Consider key personnel, major subs, previous business organizations (reduce neutral ratings) Propriety source selection information – not in Florida!

19. 19 Past Performance as Selection Factor Proposal Instructions Rely on existing documentation to maximum possible extent (otherwise, surveys and phone calls) Get two contacts for non-agency references Include statement that you may use information from other sources for both responsibility determination and best value decision For large, multi-function firms, limit references to work done by relevant segment Where large volume of proposals expected, consider early submission of past performance information to allow time for thorough review

20. 20 Past Performance as Selection Factor Evaluation Criteria Use past performance as a distinct factor Chose past performance subfactors wisely –Tailor to statement of work –Add value to overall assessment –Warrant additional time to evaluate –Enhance discrimination among competing proposals Subs, teams, and J/V partners –Consider past performance of the entire business arrangement –Evaluate each firm in the overall arrangement on its performance under contracts for similar products or services

21. 21 Past Performance as Selection Factor Evaluating Performance Validate information and assign a performance risk rating (color, number, adjective, or other) – in the manner and at the time indicated in the solicitation Consider number and severity of problems, recency and relevancy Consider demonstrated effectiveness of corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised) Consider overall work record Relate instances of good or poor work to the solicitation requirements - look for indications of excellent or exceptional performance in the most critical areas Consider Government involvement in performance problems Document rationale – need not be voluminous, but must be reasonable, i.e., based on analysis, verification, or corroboration of the information, and evaluated against the factors stated in the solicitation

22. 22 Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting January 12, 2006 Agenda MyFloridaMarketPlace update OPPAGA survey update Agency feedback on new website Update on VPT testing and launch Best Practices – Past performance information Future direction / Next meeting

23. 23 Contract Administrator’s/Purchasing Directors’ Meeting Next Meeting Time:2:00 pm to 4:00 pm Date:Thursday, February 9, 2006 Location:TBD