This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-589 
entitled 'Contractor Performance: DOD Actions to Improve the Reporting 
of Past Performance Information' which was released on June 27, 2013. 

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: 

June 2013: 

Contractor Performance: 

DOD Actions to Improve the Reporting of Past Performance Information: 

GAO-13-589: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-589, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

DOD relies on contractors to perform a broad array of activities. 
Having complete, timely, and accurate information on contractor 
performance is critical so officials responsible for awarding new 
federal contracts can make informed decisions. Agencies are required 
to document contractor performance for contracts exceeding certain 
dollar thresholds. 

In 2009, GAO found that contractor past performance information was 
incomplete, citing low priority and lack of system tools and metrics 
to track compliance. In 2011, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
(OFPP) reported that DOD assessments often lacked sufficiently 
detailed narratives. Section 806 of the NDAA for 2012 required DOD to 
develop a strategy to ensure that contractor performance assessments 
are complete, timely, and accurate. Section 806 also required GAO to 
report on DOD’s actions and their effectiveness. GAO (1) identified 
actions taken by DOD to improve the quality and timeliness of past 
performance information and implement provisions of the act, and (2) 
assessed the effectiveness of those actions. GAO reviewed DOD policy 
and guidance, and interviewed DOD and OFPP officials. GAO also 
reviewed available data on compliance with reporting requirements from 
2011-2013 and timeliness data for fiscal years 2010-2012. GAO did not 
independently assess the quality of assessment narratives. 

What GAO Found: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) strategy for improving the reporting 
of contractor past performance information consists of providing 
additional training to its acquisition workforce and developing tools 
and metrics to improve oversight. The number of personnel trained more 
than doubled since 2010 to more than 7,000, and DOD oversight 
officials now have the ability to track compliance with reporting 
requirements down to the level of individual contracting offices. DOD 
continues to utilize existing past performance guidance, which 
generally aligns with requirements specified in the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012. Compliance metrics show 
that the submission of required assessments has increased. 
Specifically, the percentage of required assessments submitted 
increased from 56 to 74 percent from October 2011 to April 2013. 
Officials at DOD said the ability to track completion of assessments 
has greatly improved oversight and accountability. Despite this 
progress, DOD faces challenges completing assessments on time, as 
illustrated in the figure below. 

Figure: Timeliness of DOD Contractor Performance Assessments, Fiscal 
Years 2010 through 2012: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Number of assessments: 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
On Time: 5,641; 
Late: 10,185; 
Total: 15,826. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
On Time: 8,155
Late: 11,968; 
Total: 20,123. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
On Time: 13,926; 
Late: 19,501; 
Total: 33,427. 

Source: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 
Program Office. 

[End of figure] 

DOD officials attribute the lack of timeliness to acquisition 
workforce shortages, turnover, and the difficulty in obtaining needed 
information. DOD is working with other agencies on a regulatory 
change, consistent with a requirement in the NDAA for 2012, that would 
reduce the time allowed for contractors to submit comments on draft 
assessments. This change should help officials submit final 
assessments on a more timely basis. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. DOD concurred 
with GAO’s findings and OFPP had no comments. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-589]. For more 
information, contact William T. Woods at (202) 512-4841 or 
woodsw@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOD's Past Performance Strategy Relies on Workforce Training, Enhanced 
Oversight, and Existing Guidance: 

DOD Increased the Number of Assessments Completed, but Still Faces 
Challenges in Completing Assessments on Time: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Percentage of Required Assessments Submitted to the Past 
Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), by DOD Component, 
from October 2011 to April 2013: 

Table 2: Time Frames for Contractor Comments Fiscal Years 2010 through 
2012: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Number of DOD Officials Trained on Assessing Contractor Past 
Performance from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting 
System (CPARS) Program Office by Fiscal Year: 

Figure 2: Timeliness of DOD Assessments Completed Fiscal Years 2010 
through 2012: 

Abbreviations: 

CPARS: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System: 

DFARS: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: 

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: 

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

June 27, 2013: 

Congressional Committees: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) relies on thousands of contractors to 
perform a broad array of activities needed to meet its mission. 
Therefore, complete and timely information regarding contractor's past 
performance is critical to ensuring that the government does business 
with companies that deliver quality goods and services on time and 
within budget. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires 
agencies to document contractor performance on contracts that exceed 
certain dollar thresholds and to make such information available to 
other agencies through a shared government-wide database. We reported 
in 2009, however, that the DOD components had completed assessments 
for less than half of the fiscal year 2007 contracts that required 
such an assessment.[Footnote 1] Agency officials noted at the time 
that a low priority for completing assessments and a lack of system 
tools and metrics to monitor compliance made it difficult for managers 
to ensure timely completion of contractor performance assessments. The 
need to improve both the quantity and quality of past performance 
information also was highlighted in a 2011 Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy (OFPP) report that found that DOD and other federal 
agency contractor assessments often lacked quality narrative 
information, such as sufficient details about how the contractor 
exceeded expectations or corrected poor performance, to support the 
assessment. According to OFPP, some of the deficiencies identified 
were likely due to staff shortages and the lack of training. 

Section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 
Fiscal Year 2012 required DOD to develop a strategy for ensuring that 
contractor past performance assessments are complete, timely, and 
accurate.[Footnote 2] Section 806 outlines several requirements 
related to documenting contractor performance and obtaining contractor 
comments on performance assessments. In addition, section 806 also 
requires the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 
to be revised to require that contractor assessments be posted to the 
databases used for making source selection decisions no later than 14 
days after delivery of the performance assessment to the contractor. 
[Footnote 3] The act also mandates us to report on DOD's actions to 
implement the required provisions. For this report, we (1) identified 
the actions taken by DOD to improve the quality and timeliness of past 
performance information and implement provisions of the act, and (2) 
assessed the effectiveness of those actions. 

To identify DOD's actions to improve the timeliness and quality of 
contractor past performance information and implement provisions of 
the act, we reviewed DOD policy and guidance related to contractor 
assessments. We also interviewed DOD officials responsible for 
contractor past performance information at the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the 
three DOD components--the Air Force, Army, and Navy--which account for 
more than 90 percent of DOD's required assessments; and the Contractor 
Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance 
Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) program offices to discuss 
actions taken or planned.[Footnote 4] We also interviewed DOD and OFPP 
officials to discuss the status of implementing the requirement to 
submit contractor assessments to the past performance database within 
14 days. To assess the effectiveness of DOD's past performance 
efforts, we reviewed data for calendar years 2011 to 2013 for 
compliance with contractor assessment requirements. To assess the 
reliability of these data, we reviewed system information and tested 
the processes and found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the 
purpose of this report. In addition, we obtained data for fiscal years 
2010, 2011, and 2012 on the number of DOD contracting officials that 
received training on contractor past performance reporting and the 
timeliness of performance assessments. We also reviewed an OFPP report 
on compliance with reporting requirements and quality of assessments. 
We did not independently assess the quality of contractor performance 
assessment narratives or the use of contractor past performance 
information in the source selection process. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to June 2013 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 requires agencies to consider past 
performance as one evaluation factor in most competitive 
procurements.[Footnote 5] During the source selection process, 
contracting officials often rely on various sources of past 
performance information, such as the prospective contractor's 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. 

Once a contract is awarded, the agency should monitor the contractor's 
performance throughout the performance period. At the time the work is 
completed, the FAR requires agencies to prepare an assessment of the 
contractor's performance for contracts or orders that exceed the 
simplified acquisition threshold.[Footnote 6] DOD has dollar 
thresholds that are generally higher than the simplified acquisition 
threshold for contractor assessments, which vary based on business 
sector. 

To document and manage contractor performance information internally, 
DOD has used CPARS since 2004. The system, which was developed by the 
Navy, incorporates processes and procedures for drafting and 
finalizing assessments, which are described in the CPARS Guide. The 
assessing official rates the contractor based on various elements such 
as quality of product or service, schedule, cost control, business 
relations, small business utilization, and management of key 
personnel. For each applicable rating element, the assessing official 
determines a rating based on definitions in 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 required to provide examples and support for 
the assessment. 

Once draft assessments are completed by the assessing official, the 
contractor is notified that the assessment is available for their 
review and comment through CPARS. The comment process includes the 
following: 

* Contractors are allowed a minimum of 30 days to provide comments, 
rebuttals, or additional information.[Footnote 7] The assessing 
official has the discretion to extend the comment period. 

* The contactor can request a meeting with the assessing official to 
discuss the assessment or request a review by the reviewing official. 

* After receiving and reviewing a contractor's comments and any 
additional information, the assessing official may revise the 
assessment and supporting narrative. 

* If there is disagreement with the assessment, the reviewing 
official--generally a government official one level above the 
assessing official organizationally--will review and finalize the 
assessment. 

After contractor comments are considered, or if the contractor elects 
not to provide comments, the assessment is finalized and submitted to 
PPIRS, where it is available government-wide for source selection 
purposes for 3 years after the contract performance completion date. 
[Footnote 8] 

Section 806 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 required DOD to develop a 
strategy for improving contractor past performance information to 
include standards for timeliness and completeness, assigning 
responsibility and accountability for completing assessments, and 
ensuring assessments are consistent with award fee evaluations. In 
addition, the section requires the DFARS to be revised to require 
contractor assessments to be posted to databases used for making 
source selection decisions no later than 14 days after delivery of the 
draft assessment to the contractor.[Footnote 9] 

DOD's Past Performance Strategy Relies on Workforce Training, Enhanced 
Oversight, and Existing Guidance: 

DOD's strategy to improve reporting of contractor past performance 
information and respond to section 806 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 
2012 is to provide training on past performance to acquisition 
officials, develop tools and metrics to track compliance and enhance 
oversight, and continue to rely on the CPARS Guide. Some elements of 
this strategy are in place already, while others are still in progress. 

Training on Past Performance Requirements: 

In order to improve compliance with past performance reporting 
requirements and the quality of assessments, the CPARS program office 
provides training opportunities and assessment tools for acquisition 
officials. As a result of increased emphasis on training, the number 
of contracting officials trained on contractor past performance more 
than doubled from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2012, as shown in 
figure 1. 

Figure 1: Number of DOD Officials Trained on Assessing Contractor Past 
Performance from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting 
System (CPARS) Program Office by Fiscal Year: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Officials trained: 3,103. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Officials trained: 3,635. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Officials trained: 7,153. 

Source: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 
Program Office. 

[End of figure] 

Training included on-site classes; instructor-led, web-based training; 
and most recently, automated on-line training. Courses include 
overviews, and training on how to write quality narratives supporting 
contractor assessments. In addition, the CPARS program office provides 
tools to facilitate completing assessments, including a quality 
checklist which includes best practices and guidance for writing 
sufficiently detailed narratives. We did not assess the quality of 
assessment narratives in this review. 

Tools and Metrics Allow for Increased Oversight: 

To increase management oversight of contractor performance 
assessments, the CPARS program office in 2010, in conjunction with 
OFPP, developed system tools and metrics within PPIRS to track 
compliance with the reporting requirements. This allows managers to 
track compliance at the department, component, or contracting office 
level. For example, contracting managers can identify overall 
compliance for their office and identify specific non-compliant 
contracts with this new tracking tool. 

Officials at DOD components told us that having the ability to track 
completion of required assessments through PPIRS has greatly improved 
the ability to effectively oversee and manage compliance, and has also 
improved accountability for completing assessments. In an effort to 
increase accountability, the Director of Defense Procurement and 
Acquisition Policy issues quarterly compliance reports to senior 
procurement executives. Senior procurement executives at DOD 
components have required reporting of actions taken by individual 
contracting activities, set goals for compliance, and encouraged or 
required training. In addition, DOD officials told us contractor past 
performance is now discussed at senior level acquisition quarterly and 
monthly meetings. 

CPARS Guide Addresses Most of the Elements in Section 806: 

DOD plans to continue implementing existing policies contained in the 
CPARS Guide, which addresses most of the required elements specified 
in section 806. Specifically, the CPARS Guide aligns with section 806 
through the following: 

Standards for timeliness: 

* Contractor performance assessment must be finalized within 120 days 
after the end of the evaluation period. For contracts and orders with 
performance exceeding one year, annual interim assessments are 
required and a final assessments is required when the work is 
completed.[Footnote 10] 

Roles and responsibilities for documenting contractor performance: 

* The assessing official, usually the contracting officer, is 
responsible for preparing and finalizing the assessment. 

* The reviewing official reconciles any disagreements between the 
assessing official and the contractor. 

* The CPARS Focal Point provides overall support for the CPARS process 
for a particular organization and assigns key roles for each contract 
requiring an assessment based on information from the contracting 
officer, program, or project manager. 

Award fee guidance: 

* Provides sources of data to consider, including earned incentive and 
award fee determinations. In addition, DOD provided additional 
guidance on translating award fee determinations into past performance 
assessments. 

Although the CPARS Guide does not currently specify standards for 
completeness, one of the elements specified in section 806, a recent 
proposed change to the FAR will address completeness by providing 
minimum government-wide standards for past performance rating 
elements. Specifically, the proposed rule requires that all 
assessments address, at a minimum, quality of product or service, 
timeliness, and management or business relations.[Footnote 11] 

DOD Increased the Number of Assessments Completed, but Still Faces 
Challenges in Completing Assessments on Time: 

PPIRS compliance metrics show the percentage of required assessments 
completed increased from 56 percent in 2011 to 74 percent in 2013. In 
addition, the number of assessments completed overall more than 
doubled from 2010 to 2012. DOD still faces challenges, however, in 
completing assessments on time. 

Submission of Required Assessments Has Increased: 

An increased focus on completing past performance assessments, both 
within the components and among individual contracting activities, has 
resulted in more required assessments being completed and submitted to 
PPIRS. As of April 2013, PPIRS's metrics show compliance with the 
reporting requirement of about 74 percent--an increase of 18 
percentage points since October 2011. Based on our review of 
government-wide PPIRS compliance metrics, DOD compliance with the 
reporting requirement is generally much higher than other federal 
agencies. For example, as of April 2013, more than half of federal 
agencies had no required contractor assessments in PPIRS. Among DOD's 
major components, most showed significant improvement, as shown in 
table 1 below. 

Table 1: Percentage of Required Assessments Submitted to the Past 
Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), by DOD Component, 
from October 2011 to April 2013: 

DOD Component: Air Force; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: October 3, 2011: 82%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: September 28, 2012: 82%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: April 1, 2013: 80%. 

DOD Component: Navy; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: October 3, 2011: 66%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: September 28, 2012: 69%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: April 1, 2013: 72%. 

DOD Component: Army; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: October 3, 2011: 49%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: September 28, 2012: 60%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: April 1, 2013: 73%. 

DOD Component: Other DOD; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: October 3, 2011: 32%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: September 28, 2012: 61%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: April 1, 2013: 71%. 

DOD Component: Total DOD; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: October 3, 2011: 56%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: September 28, 2012: 66%; 
Compliance rate[A] as of: April 1, 2013: 74%. 

Source: PPIRS compliance metrics. 

[A] Compliance is based on contracts or orders that should have an 
assessment in PPIRS--that is, with a period of performance over the 
prior 3 years that meet the reporting dollar threshold, and have an 
assessment due. 

[End of table] 

Timeliness of Submissions Remains a Challenge: 

Although compliance with the reporting requirements for performance 
assessments has increased, DOD still faces challenges with completing 
assessments on time. As shown in figure 2, the total number of 
assessments completed more than doubled from 2010 to 2012. In 
addition, the number of assessments completed on time also increased 
significantly--from about 5,600 to almost 14,000. However, the 
majority of assessments completed each year exceeded the 120-day 
standard for timeliness. In part, the number of assessments completed 
after the specified time frame may be the result of increased emphasis 
on working down the backlog of past-due assessments. For example, 
about 31,000 assessments became due during fiscal year 2012, but DOD 
completed over 33,000 during that year. 

Figure 2: Timeliness of DOD Assessments Completed Fiscal Years 2010 
through 2012: 

Number of assessments: 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
On Time: 5,641; 
Late: 10,185; 
Total: 15,826. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
On Time: 8,155
Late: 11,968; 
Total: 20,123. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
On Time: 13,926; 
Late: 19,501; 
Total: 33,427. 

Source: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 
Program Office. 

[End of figure] 

DOD officials told us that department-wide acquisition workforce 
shortages and turnover, as well as difficulty obtaining contractor 
performance information remain as challenges to completing contractor 
performance assessments on time. For example, completing contractor 
assessments is considered a joint responsibility between the 
contracting and program office and, the assessing official often 
relies on others to provide information needed to complete the 
assessment, and in some cases may have difficulty obtaining the 
information. 

In addition, assessments are not finalized until the contractor has an 
opportunity to provide comments, and the 120-day standard for 
finalizing assessments includes the contractor comment period. The FAR 
currently requires that all federal contractors be given a minimum of 
30 days to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional 
information to performance assessments. As shown in Table 2, DOD 
received comments from contractors on over 80 percent of all 
assessments from fiscal years 2010 through 2012, and most were 
received within the current 30-day minimum requirement for responding. 

Table 2: Time Frames for Contractor Comments Fiscal Years 2010 through 
2012: 

Contractor comments received: 

14 days or less; 
Percentage of completed assessments: 43%. 

Between 14 and 30 days; 
Percentage of completed assessments: 30%. 

Greater than 30 days; 
Percentage of completed assessments: 9%. 

Total assessments with comments; 
Percentage of completed assessments: 81%. 

Contractor comments not received: 

Assessment finalized and submitted to PPIRS without comments; 
Percentage of completed assessments: 19%. 

Source: Contractor Performance Reporting System (CPARS) Program Office. 

[End of table] 

Section 806 would limit the comment period to 14 days before the 
assessment is submitted to PPIRS, which should help DOD meet the 120-
day standard for submitting past performance assessments. DOD is 
currently working with the rest of the FAR Council to implement this 
change. 

Agency Comments: 

We are not making recommendations in this report. We provided a draft 
of this report to DOD and OFPP for their review and comment. DOD 
informed us by email that it concurred with our findings and the 
information presented in this report and would not be providing 
written comments. DOD officials provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. OFPP informed us by email that the office 
had no comments. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 
committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. This report 
will also be available at no charge on 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. GAO staff who made key contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix I. 

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 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 C.W. Bill Young: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Pete Visclosky: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

William T. Woods, (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, LaTonya Miller, Assistant 
Director; John Neumann, Assistant Director; Dani Green; Julia Kennon; 
John Krump; and Bradley Terry made key contributions to this report. 

[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. 112-81 § 806 (2011). 

[3] Agencies are required to submit past performance reports 
electronically to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System 
(PPIRS). FAR § 42.1503(c). 

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

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

[7] Providing contractors a minimum of 30 days to respond is required 
by the FAR § 42.1503(b). 

[8] Construction and architect-engineer contracts are available for 6 
years after the contract performance completion date. FAR § 42.1503(e). 

[9] The FAR currently requires that contractors are provided a minimum 
of 30 days to provide comments. Rather than establishing a DOD class 
deviation from the FAR, the FAR Council, which includes DOD, agreed to 
implement the change government-wide by developing a proposed change 
to the FAR. As part of the rulemaking process, the proposed rule is 
under review by the Office of Management and Budget before being 
released for public comment, which OFPP officials estimate will occur 
around mid 2013. 

[10] CPARS Guide, page 14, para. 4.1.1 (November 2012). 

[11] FAR Case 2012-009. 77 Fed. Reg. 54864,54869 (Sept. 6, 2012). 

[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]