This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-374 
entitled 'Federal Contractors: Better Performance Information Needed to 
Support Agency Contract Award Decisions' which was released on May 22, 2009. 

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. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

April 2009: 

Federal Contractors: 

Better Performance Information Needed to Support Agency Contract Award 
Decisions: 

GAO-09-374: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-374, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In fiscal year 2007, federal agencies worked with over 160,000 
contractors, obligating over $456 billion, to help accomplish federal 
missions. This reliance on contractors makes it critical that agencies 
have the information necessary to properly evaluate a contractor’s 
prior history of performance and better inform agencies’ contract award 
decisions. 

While actions have been taken to improve the sharing of past 
performance information and its use—including the development of the 
Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)—concerns remain 
about this information. This report assesses agencies’ use of past 
performance information in awarding contracts; identifies challenges 
that hinder systematic sharing of past performance information; and 
describes efforts to improve contractor performance information. 

In conducting this work, GAO analyzed 62 contract solicitations from 
fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and met with 121 contracting officials. 
While the solicitations represent a range of contracts and contractors, 
GAO’s findings cannot be generalized to all federal contracts. 

What GAO Found: 

Agencies considered past performance information in evaluating 
contractors for each of the 62 solicitations GAO reviewed. Generally, 
factors other than past performance, such as technical approach or 
cost, were the primary factors for contract award decisions. A majority 
of officials told us their reluctance to rely more on past performance 
was due, in part, to their skepticism about the reliability of the 
information and difficulty assessing relevance to specific 
acquisitions. 

Contracting officials agreed that for past performance information to 
be useful for sharing, it must be documented, relevant, and reliable. 
However, GAO’s review of PPIRS data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 
indicates that only a small percentage of contracts had a documented 
performance assessment; in particular, we found little contractor 
performance information for orders against the General Services 
Administration’s Multiple Award Schedule. Other performance information 
that could be useful in award decisions, such as contract terminations 
for default and subcontract management, was not systematically captured 
across agencies. Some officials noted that a lack of accountability and 
lack of system tools and metrics made it difficult for managers to 
ensure timely performance reports. Variations in evaluation and rating 
factors have also limited the usefulness of past performance 
information. Finally, a lack of central oversight and management of 
PPIRS data has hindered efforts to address these and other 
shortcomings. 

Several efforts have been initiated to improve PPIRS, but little 
progress has been made. In 2005, an interagency work group established 
several broad goals for improving past performance information, 
including standardizing performance ratings used by various agencies. 
However, these goals have yet to be met, and no funding has been 
dedicated for this purpose. In April 2008, changes to federal 
regulations were proposed that would clarify past performance 
documentation requirements and require the use of PPIRS. However, as of 
February 2009, the proposed changes had not been finalized. 

Table: Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment That Had an 
Assessment in Fiscal Year 2007: 

Department/agency: Air Force; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment: 2,795; 
Contracts with an assessment: 1,300; Percent: 47. 

Department/agency: Navy; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment: 3,879; 
Contracts with an assessment: 1,622; Percent: 42. 

Department/agency: Army; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment: 6,145; 
Contracts with an assessment: 1,971; Percent: 32. 

Department/agency: Other DOD; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment: 1,408; 
Contracts with an assessment: 303; 
Percent: 22. 

Department/agency: Homeland Security; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment: 4,131;
Contracts with an assessment: 535; 
Percent: 13. 

Department/agency: NASA; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment: 3,706; 
Contracts with an assessment: 1,093; Percent: 29. 

Department/agency: Energy; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment: 840; 
Contracts with an assessment: 183; 
Percent: 22. 

Total percentage: 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment: 22,904; 
Contracts with an assessment: 7,007; Percent: 31. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from DOD, FPDS-NG, and PPIRS. 

[End of table] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making recommendations to the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy and selected agencies aimed at facilitating sharing and use of 
past performance information. All agencies agreed with the 
recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-374] or key 
components. For more information, contact Anne-Marie Lasowski at (202) 
512-4146 or lasowskia@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Factors Other Than Past Performance Generally Drive Contract Award 
Decisions: 

Challenges Hinder Systematic, Governmentwide Sharing of Past 
Performance Information: 

Efforts to Improve PPIRS and the Sharing of Performance Information 
Have Made Little Progress: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Information on Selected Contracts: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Federal Contract Obligations and Contractors for Selected 
Agencies, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Table 2: Number and Percentage of Contractors That Support DOD and 
Other Agencies, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Table 3: Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment and Number of 
Assessments in PPIRS for Selected Agencies, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007: 

Table 4: Comparison of Contractor Past Performance Systems Rating 
Factors: 

Abbreviations: 

CPARS: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System: 

CPS: Contractor Performance System: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DODIG: Department of Defense Inspector General: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation: 

FPDS-NG: Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

MAS: Multiple Award Schedule: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

OFPP: Office of Federal Procurement Policy: 

PPDB: Past Performance Database: 

PPIRS: Past Performance Information Retrieval System: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

April 23, 2009: 

The Honorable Henry Waxman: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Energy and Commerce: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Edolphus Towns: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Dennis Cardoza: 
House of Representatives: 

Each year, federal agencies hire thousands of contractors to help 
accomplish their missions. In fiscal year 2007 alone, federal agencies 
worked with over 160,000 contractors, obligating over $456 billion. 
Contractors are involved in a broad array of activities, from basic 
functions, such as landscaping and janitorial services, to more complex 
functions, like acquisition support and security services. These 
contractors often employ subcontractors to help them meet contract 
requirements. This reliance on contractors makes it critical that 
federal agencies have the information necessary to properly evaluate a 
contractor's prior history of performance and better inform agencies' 
contract award decisions. 

To facilitate the sharing of such information, the Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy (OFPP) created the Past Performance Information 
Retrieval System (PPIRS)--a system intended to be a repository of 
performance information on federal contractors. However, more than 5 
years after the implementation of PPIRS in July 2002, questions have 
been raised about how well federal agencies are documenting and sharing 
information on contractor past performance. Specifically, you have 
noted that agencies were renewing or awarding contracts to contractors 
with questionable performance records. Consequently, you asked us to 
review several issues related to the use of past performance 
information. In response to your request, we (1) assessed agencies' use 
of information on contractors' past performances in awarding contracts; 
(2) identified challenges that hinder systematic, governmentwide 
sharing of past performance information; and (3) described efforts 
under way or planned to improve the sharing of information on 
contractor performance. 

To conduct our work, we reviewed and analyzed the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) and OFPP guidance on the use of past performance 
information. We also reviewed guidance from the Department of Defense 
(DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the 
General Services Administration (GSA). We discussed this guidance and a 
broad range of issues related to how agencies use past performance 
information with 121 contracting officials at 11 buying offices that 
represented a range of acquisition activities. Further, we selected and 
analyzed 62 contract files from fiscal years 2007 and 2008--focusing on 
how buying offices considered past performance information relative to 
other evaluation factors. We selected contracts that represent a range 
of products and services, types of contracts, contract dollar values, 
and contractors across the government, but our findings cannot be 
generalized to all federal contracts. We also analyzed data in PPIRS, 
past performance information that agencies feed into PPIRS, the 
evaluation factors and rating scales used in the system, and met with 
agency officials who administer the system. We conducted this 
performance audit from February 2008 to February 2009 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. See appendix I for a more detailed 
discussion of our scope and methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

Agencies have broad discretion in determining how to use past 
performance information in selecting contractors, including the 
importance they place on this information relative to factors other 
than cost or price. For the 62 solicitations we reviewed that required 
an evaluation of past performance, the ranking of past performance as 
an evaluation factor relative to other non-cost factors varied. In most 
of the solicitations, the company's technical approach to work was the 
non-cost factor ranked most important, but for 38 percent of these 
contracts, past performance was ranked as the most important or tied 
for most important non-cost factor. Contracting officials who viewed 
past performance as an important evaluation factor noted that basing 
contract award decisions, in part, on past performance encourages 
companies to achieve better acquisition outcomes over the long term. 
Though agencies considered past performance information in evaluating 
proposals, many of the officials we spoke with noted that past 
performance rarely determined their contract award decisions. 
Generally, officials relied on technical approach or cost as the 
primary deciding factors, when awarding the contract. Officials cited 
several reasons for not relying more on past performance information 
that included an overall lack of confidence in the objectivity of past 
performance information and challenges in assessing its relevance 
specific to the contract award. Contracting officials obtained past 
performance information from multiple sources, such as questionnaires 
completed by other government contracting officials and interviews with 
other agency contacts. Most officials we spoke with also used PPIRS as 
a source of information, but cited the absence of information in PPIRS 
as one reason for typically relying on other sources. Overall, 
contracting officials told us that for past performance information to 
be meaningful in contract award decisions, it must be documented, 
relevant, and reliable. 

Several challenges hinder capturing adequate performance information 
for governmentwide sharing. First, agencies do not always assess and 
document contractor performance for contracts above a certain monetary 
threshold, as required by the FAR. Our review of PPIRS data for fiscal 
years 2006 and 2007 indicates that only a small percentage of contracts 
had a documented performance assessment; in particular, we found little 
contractor performance information for task or delivery orders placed 
against GSA's Multiple Award Schedule (MAS). Second, other performance 
information that could be useful in making award decisions, such as 
contract terminations for default and management of subcontracts, was 
not systematically documented across agencies. Third, some officials 
noted a lack of priority on documenting performance assessments and a 
lack of available system tools and metrics that managers needed to 
oversee the timely documenting of past performance evaluations. Fourth, 
a lack of standardized evaluation factors and rating scales in the 
systems used to collect past performance information did not allow for 
aggregate level measures of how contractors were performing---limiting 
the usefulness of the system. Finally, a lack of central oversight and 
management of PPIRS has hindered efforts to address shortcomings with 
the past performance systems. 

Several efforts have been initiated to improve PPIRS and provide 
pertinent and timely performance information, but little progress has 
been made. In 2005, OFPP--which has the authority to guide federal 
agencies in establishing standards for evaluating past performance and 
collecting and maintaining the information--established through an 
interagency work group several broad goals for improving past 
performance information. These goals included standardizing the ratings 
used to assess contractor performance and developing a centralized 
questionnaire system for governmentwide use. However, more than 3 years 
later, these goals have yet to be met and no funding has been dedicated 
for this purpose. In April 2008, FAR changes were proposed to clarify 
past performance documentation requirements, including mandating the 
use of PPIRS and requiring agencies to identify individuals responsible 
for preparing contractor performance assessments. The comment period on 
these proposals ended in June 2008, but the changes had not been 
finalized as of February 2009. 

We make several recommendations to OFPP aimed at improving 
governmentwide sharing and use of past performance information in 
contract award decisions. We also recommend that the agencies included 
in our review establish management controls and appropriate management 
review of past performance evaluations to improve management and 
accountability for documenting contractor past performance information. 
OFPP and the agencies agreed with our recommendations. In addition, 
most of these agencies outlined plans or actions to implement our 
recommendation on management controls and reviews of past performance. 
DHS took issue with the data presented regarding estimated contracts 
requiring a performance assessment stating that the numbers were 
possibly misleading in how they compared to other agencies. Moreover, 
DHS provided its own data and requested that we revise ours. We applied 
the same methodology to DHS as we applied to all civilian agencies and 
found no basis for the revised numbers provided by DHS. Therefore, we 
stand by our methodology and data. Nevertheless, DHS agreed with the 
larger issue that significant strides need to be made in documenting 
required performance assessments. 

Background: 

The federal government relies heavily on contractors to provide a range 
of goods and services. In fiscal year 2007, about 160,000 contractors 
provided support to federal agencies. A large portion of these 
contractors was concentrated in five agencies: DOD, DHS, DOE, NASA, and 
GSA. Among these five agencies, DOD accounts for 72 percent of all 
contract obligations across about 77,000 contractors in fiscal year 
2007 (see table 1). 

Table 1: Federal Contract Obligations and Contractors for Selected 
Agencies, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Department/agency: DOD; 
Contract obligations ($billions): $330.9; 
Percentage of total awarded dollars: 72.4; 
Number of contractors: 76,900. 

Department/agency: Homeland Security; 
Contract obligations ($billions): 11.8; 
Percentage of total awarded dollars: 2.6; 
Number of contractors: 13,200. 

Department/agency: NASA; 
Contract obligations ($billions): 12.8; 
Percentage of total awarded dollars: 2.8; 
Number of contractors: 2,600. 

Department/agency: Energy; 
Contract obligations ($billions): 22.9; 
Percentage of total awarded dollars: 5.0; 
Number of contractors: 2,400. 

Department/agency: General Services Administration; 
Contract obligations ($billions): 12.3; 
Percentage of total awarded dollars: 2.7; 
Number of contractors: 14,800. 

Source: USASpending.gov contract data as of December 15, 2008. 

[End of table] 

These five agencies often rely on the same contractors. Table 2 shows 
the number and percentage of contractors DHS, NASA, DOE, and GSA had in 
common with DOD in fiscal year 2007. 

Table 2: Number and Percentage of Contractors That Support DOD and 
Other Agencies, Fiscal Year 2007: 

Department/Agency: Department of Defense; 
Number of contractors[A]: 76,900. 

Department/Agency: Department of Homeland Security; 
Number of contractors[A]: 13,200; 
Number in common with DOD: 6,200; 
Percentage in common with DOD: 47. 

Department/Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
Number of contractors[A]: 2,600; 
Number in common with DOD: 1,700; 
Percentage in common with DOD: 65. 

Department/Agency: Department of Energy; 
Number of contractors[A]: 2,400; 
Number in common with DOD: 1,300; 
Percentage in common with DOD: 54. 

Department/Agency: General Services Administration; 
Number of contractors[A]: 14,800; 
Number in common with DOD: 4,800; 
Percentage in common with DOD: 32. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from USASpending.gov contract data as of 
December 15, 2008. 

[A] USASpending.gov utilizes data from the Federal Procurement Data 
System-Next Generation (FPDS-NG) and aggregates subsidiaries and 
divisions by parent company using information provided by Dun and 
Bradstreet. 

[End of table] 

The FAR requires agencies to consider past performance information as 
an evaluation factor in certain negotiated competitive procurements 
[Footnote 1]--along with other evaluation factors such as price, 
management capability, and technical excellence.[Footnote 2] Contractor 
past performance information may include the contractor's: 

* record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of 
good workmanship; 

* record of forecasting and controlling costs; 

* adherence to contract schedules; and: 

* history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to 
customer satisfaction.[Footnote 3] 

Although the FAR requires officials in selecting contractors to 
consider past performance as an evaluation factor in certain negotiated 
procurements, agencies have broad discretion in deciding its importance 
relative to other factors in the evaluation scheme. Agencies determine 
which of the contractor's past contracts are similar to the contract to 
be awarded in terms of size, scope, complexity, or contract type and 
the relative importance of past performance. For procurements with 
clearly defined requirements and minimal risk of unsuccessful contract 
performance, cost or price may play a more important role than past 
performance in selecting contractors. For procurements with less 
clearly defined requirements and a higher risk of unsuccessful contract 
performance, it may be in the government's best interest to consider 
past performance, technical capability, and other factors as more 
important than cost or price. The FAR requires that solicitations 
disclose the evaluation factors that will be used in selecting a 
contractor and their relative importance.[Footnote 4] In evaluating 
past performance information, agencies must consider, among other 
things, the 1) currency and relevancy, 2) source and context, and 3) 
general trends in the contractor's performance. The solicitation must 
also describe how offerors with no performance history will be 
evaluated.[Footnote 5] 

Once a contract is awarded, the government should monitor a 
contractor's performance throughout the performance period. 
Surveillance includes oversight of a contractor's work to provide 
assurance that the contractor is providing timely and quality goods or 
services and to help mitigate any contractor performance problems. An 
agency's monitoring of a contractor's performance may serve as a basis 
for past performance evaluations. The FAR requires agencies to prepare 
an evaluation of contractor performance for each contract that exceeds 
the simplified acquisition threshold at the time the work is completed 
and gives agencies discretion to include interim evaluations for 
contracts with a performance period exceeding one year.[Footnote 6] The 
DOD has generally higher thresholds based on business sectors.[Footnote 
7] 

A number of systems across the government are used to capture 
contractor performance information, which is eventually passed on to 
PPIRS. DOD maintains three systems for its military departments and 
agencies--Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System 
(ACASS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), and 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). NASA has 
its own system, the Past Performance Database (PPDB). DHS and DOE are 
transitioning to using DOD's CPARS.[Footnote 8] Other civilian 
departments use the Contractor Performance System (CPS) managed by the 
National Institutes of Health. Effective July 1, 2002, all federal 
contractor past performance information currently captured through 
these disparate systems was to be centrally available for use by all 
federal agency contracting officials through PPIRS--a Web-enabled, 
governmentwide application for consolidating federal contractor 
performance information.[Footnote 9] 

Since its implementation, concerns have been raised about the 
completeness of the information in PPIRS. In February 2008, a DOD 
Inspector General report noted that the information in CPARS, which 
feeds information into PPIRS, was incomplete and questioned whether or 
not acquisition officials had access to all the information they needed 
to make business decisions.[Footnote 10] Specifically, in reviewing 
performance assessment reports in CPARS, the Inspector General reported 
that for DOD contracts valued at more than $5 million, 82 percent did 
not contain detailed narratives sufficient to establish that ratings 
were credible and justifiable; 68 percent had performance reports that 
were overdue; and 39 percent were registered more than a year late. In 
addition, the report identified material internal control weaknesses in 
the Air Force, Army, and Navy procedures for documenting and reporting 
contractor performance information.[Footnote 11] 

Factors Other Than Past Performance Generally Drive Contract Award 
Decisions: 

Agencies considered past performance information in evaluating 
contractors for the contract solicitations we reviewed, but many of the 
officials we spoke with noted that past performance rarely, if ever, 
was the deciding factor in their contract award decisions. Their 
reluctance to base award decisions on past performance was due, in 
part, to their skepticism about the comprehensiveness and reliability 
[Footnote 12] of past performance information and difficulty assessing 
its relevance to specific acquisitions. 

For the 62 contract solicitations we reviewed, the ranking of past 
performance as an evaluation factor relative to other non-cost factors 
varied. The company's technical approach was the non-cost factor 
considered most important for most solicitations. Past performance as 
an evaluation factor was ranked first in order of importance in about 
38 percent of solicitations (appendix I provides more details on the 
methodology for selecting and reviewing contract solicitations). 
Contracting officials who viewed past performance as an important 
evaluation factor noted that basing contract award decisions, in part, 
on past performance encourages companies to achieve better acquisition 
outcomes over the long term. For example, according to officials at one 
Air Force location, an incumbent contractor was not awarded a follow-on 
contract worth over $1 billion primarily because of poor performance on 
the prior contract. As a result, the contractor implemented several 
management and procedural changes to improve its performance on future 
contracts. 

Despite the fact that past performance was an evaluation factor in all 
the solicitations we reviewed, over 60 percent of the contracting 
officers we talked with stated that past performance is rarely or never 
a deciding factor in selecting a contractor. Many contracting officers 
stated they preferred to rely on other more objective factors such as 
technical approach or price. Officials cited several reasons for their 
reluctance to rely more on past performance in making award decisions 
including difficulty obtaining objective and candid past performance 
information. For example, over half of the contracting managers 
[Footnote 13] we met with noted that officials who are assessing a 
contractor's performance have difficulty separating problems caused by 
the contractor from those caused by the government, such as changing or 
poorly defined government requirements. Fear of damaging contractor 
relations may also influence assessments of contractor performance, 
particularly in areas where there are a limited number of contractors 
that can provide a particular good or service. Some contracting 
officials told us there may also be a tendency to "water down" 
assessments if they perceive a contractor may contest a negative 
rating.[Footnote 14] Contracting officials also cited other challenges 
for not relying more on past performance information including 1) 
difficulty assessing relevance to the specific acquisition or offerors 
with no relevant past performance information, 2) lack of documented 
examples of past performance, and 3) lack of adequate time to identify, 
obtain, and analyze past performance information. 

Contracting officials often rely on multiple sources of past 
performance information. Most officials told us they found information 
from the prospective contractor's prior government or industry customer 
references--gathered through interviews or questionnaires--as the most 
useful source of past performance information.[Footnote 15] Moreover, 
several contracting officials noted that they use questionnaires to 
obtain past performance information on major subcontractors. Officials 
noted, however, that questionnaires are time-consuming and the 
performance information collected through them is not shared 
governmentwide. Other sources of past performance information include 
informal contacts such as from other contracting officers who have 
dealt with the contractor in the past. Most contracting officials we 
spoke with also used PPIRS, but cited the absence of information in 
PPIRS as one reason for typically relying on other sources along with 
challenges in ascertaining information that was relevant to the 
specific acquisitions. Several contracting officials stated a 
governmentwide system like PPIRS, if populated, could reduce the time 
and effort to collect past performance information for use in selecting 
contractors. Regardless of the source used, contracting officials 
agreed that for past performance information to be meaningful in 
contract award decisions, it must be documented, relevant, and 
reliable. 

Challenges Hinder Systematic, Governmentwide Sharing of Past 
Performance Information: 

Our review of PPIRS data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 found 
relatively little past performance information available for sharing 
and potential use in contract award decisions. One reason is that 
agencies are not documenting contractor performance information that 
feeds into PPIRS to include, in some cases, contract actions involving 
task or delivery orders placed against GSA's MAS. Other information 
that could provide key insights into a contractor's performance, such 
as information on contract terminations for default and a prime 
contractor's management of subcontractors, was also not systematically 
documented. Contracting managers also lack tools and metrics to monitor 
the completeness of past performance data in the systems agencies use 
to record past performance information. Further, the lack of 
standardized evaluation factors and rating scales in the systems that 
collect past performance information has limited the system's 
usefulness in providing an aggregate level picture of how contractors 
are performing. Finally, lack of central oversight of PPIRS has 
undermined efforts to capture adequate past performance information. 

Agencies Are Generally Not Documenting Contractor Performance As 
Required: 

The FAR requires[Footnote 16] agencies to prepare an evaluation of 
contractor performance for each contract that exceeds the simplified 
acquisition threshold ($100,000 in most cases) when the contract work 
is completed. While the FAR definition of a contract[Footnote 17] can 
be read to include orders placed against GSA's Multiple Award Schedule 
(MAS),[Footnote 18] the FAR does not specifically state whether this 
requirement applies to contracts or task or delivery order contracts 
awarded by another agency.[Footnote 19] While DOD and many agencies we 
reviewed have issued supplemental guidance reiterating the FAR 
requirement to evaluate and document contractor performance[Footnote 
20]--information that ultimately should be fed into PPIRS--the agencies 
generally did not comply with the requirement. 

We estimated that the number of contracts that required a performance 
assessment in fiscal year 2007 for agencies we reviewed would have 
totaled about 23,000. For the same period, we found about 7,000 
assessments in PPIRS--about 31 percent of those contracts requiring an 
assessment (see table 3).[Footnote 21] About 75 percent of all past 
performance reports in PPIRS were from DOD, with the Air Force 
accounting for the highest percent of completed assessments; however, 
there were relatively few for some military services--a finding 
consistent with the DOD IG's February 2008 report.[Footnote 22] For the 
civilian agencies we reviewed, there were relatively few performance 
reports in PPIRS compared to the number we estimated. For example, for 
fiscal year 2007, an estimated 13 percent of DHS contracts that would 
potentially require a performance assessment were documented in PPIRS. 

Table 3: Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment and Number of 
Assessments in PPIRS for Selected Agencies, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007: 

Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2006: 2,563; 
Contracts with assessment 2006: 1,432; 
Estimated percent: 56; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2007: 2,795; 
Contracts with assessment 2007: 1,300; 
Estimated percent: 47. 

Department/Agency: Navy; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2006: 3,985; 
Contracts with assessment 2006: 1,833; 
Estimated percent: 46; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2007: 3,879; 
Contracts with assessment 2007: 1,622; 
Estimated percent: 42. 

Department/Agency: Army; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2006: 6,595; 
Contracts with assessment 2006: 2,606; 
Estimated percent: 40; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2007: 6,145; 
Contracts with assessment 2007: 1,971; 
Estimated percent: 32. 

Department/Agency: Other DOD; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2006: 1,601; 
Contracts with assessment 2006: 330; 
Estimated percent: 21; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2007: 1,408; 
Contracts with assessment 2007: 303; 
Estimated percent: 22. 

Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2006: 4,487; 
Contracts with assessment 2006: 324; 
Estimated percent: 7; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2007: 4,131; 
Contracts with assessment 2007: 535; 
Estimated percent: 13. 

Department/Agency: NASA; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2006: 4,285; 
Contracts with assessment 2006: 1,009; 
Estimated percent: 24; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2007: 3,706; 
Contracts with assessment 2007: 1,093; 
Estimated percent: 29. 

Department/Agency: Energy; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2006: 893; 
Contracts with assessment 2006: 136; 
Estimated percent: 15; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2007: 840; 
Contracts with assessment 2007: 183; 
Estimated percent: 22. 

Department/Agency: Total; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2006: 24,409; 
Contracts with assessment 2006: 7,670; 
Estimated percent: 31; 
Estimated contracts requiring an assessment 2007: 22,904; 
Contracts with assessment 2007: 7,007; 
Estimated percent: 31. 

Source: For DOD: data from CPARS program office. For civilian agencies: 
GAO analysis of FPDS-NG and PPIRS data. 

Note: Estimated contracts requiring an assessment for civilian agencies 
include definitive contracts (defined in the FPDS User's Manual as 
contractual vehicles that cannot have orders placed against them) and 
indefinite delivery base contracts with orders that exceeded the 
reporting thresholds during each fiscal year. Data provided by DOD on 
the estimated contracts requiring an assessment also counted base 
contracts with total orders exceeding DOD's reporting thresholds, which 
are generally higher than $100,000 based on business sector as 
previously noted. These estimates are conservative since they do not 
include individual orders issued by these agencies that exceed the 
required reporting thresholds. For additional information, see 
"Appendix I: Scope and Methodology." 

[End of table] 

For specific types of contract actions, such as task and delivery 
orders placed against GSA's MAS, we found little contractor performance 
information in PPIRS. Between fiscal years 1998 and 2008, purchases 
made against MAS have grown from over $7 billion to $37 billion. 
Similarly, the number of MAS contracts has increased from 5,200 in the 
mid-1990s to 18,000 in fiscal year 2008. Despite this significant 
growth, the number of performance reports in PPIRS for orders placed 
against MAS contracts is minimal. For example, about 5 percent of the 
DHS orders and none of NASA's were assessed in fiscal year 2007. 
Contracting officials we spoke with confirmed that these assessments 
were generally not being done; some told us that they believed GSA was 
collecting this information. According to GSA officials, however, 
agencies are responsible for documenting and reporting MAS contractor 
performance, and GSA does not generally request feedback on performance 
for MAS contractors. Without this information, GSA is in no position to 
know how a contractor is performing when deciding whether or not to 
continue doing business with that contractor. 

Other Information for Insight into a Contractor's Past Performance Is 
Not Systematically Documented: 

Currently, there is no governmentwide requirement for agencies to 
document in PPIRS when a contract has been terminated because the 
contractor defaulted on the terms of the contract. Consequently, 
contracting officers may not have access to all information on a 
contractor's past performance that could factor into a contract award 
decision.[Footnote 23] The recent awarding of contracts to defaulted 
contractors highlights the need for information on contract 
terminations when making contracting decisions. For example, a $280- 
million Army munitions contract was awarded to a contractor that had 
previously been terminated for default on several different contracts. 
The contracting officer told us that this information, if available, 
would have factored into the contract award decision. Subsequently, 
this same contractor defaulted under that contract. Similarly, an 
October 2008 report issued by the Office of the Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction documented that at least eight 
contractors that had one or more of their projects terminated for 
default received new contracts and purchase orders.[Footnote 24] As 
part of this audit, the office examined whether the agencies had 
evaluated the contractors' prior performance before awarding contracts 
and whether they had considered suspending or debarring the poor 
performing contractors. Although the report found that the awards to 
defaulted contractors were within the authority provided by the FAR, it 
raised questions about the degree to which the contractors' prior 
performance was considered. In June 2008, the FAR Council opened a case 
to address termination for default reporting.[Footnote 25] In addition, 
DOD issued policy in July 2008 on the need for departmentwide 
centralized knowledge of all contracts that have been terminated 
regardless of dollar amount.[Footnote 26] 

At the subcontractor level, apart from evaluating a prime contractor's 
management of its subcontractors, historically, the federal government 
has had limited visibility into subcontractor performance despite the 
increased use in subcontractors. In January 2008, we reported that 
total subcontract awards from DOD contracts had increased by 27 percent 
over a 4-year period--from $86.5 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $109.5 
billion in fiscal year 2006.[Footnote 27] As we reported, federal 
contractors must manage contract performance, including planning and 
administering subcontracts as necessary, to ensure the lowest overall 
cost and minimize technical risk to the government. The FAR provides 
that the agency's past performance evaluation should take into account 
past performance information regarding a prospective contractor's 
subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of a 
requirement when such information is relevant to an acquisition. 
[Footnote 28] 

Agency contracting officials informed us that they do not assess the 
performance of these subcontractors. Rather, if they collect any 
information, it is in their assessments of the prime contractor's 
subcontract management. However, not all collection systems used by 
agencies allow for systematic capturing of subcontract management 
information, if it was applicable in a procurement. DOD's CPARS system 
has a separate rating factor for subcontract management for systems 
contracts whereas systems used by NASA and other civilian agencies do 
not have a separate factor. DOD guidance states assessments must not be 
done on subcontractors, but CPARS allows the assessing official to 
address the prime contractor's ability to manage and coordinate 
subcontractor efforts. Beyond this information on subcontractors, no 
additional information is routinely collected on subcontractors. 

In addition, the FAR was recently revised to explain that information 
on contractor ethics can be considered past performance information. 
The FAR now states that a contractor's history of reasonable and 
cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction may be 
considered part of a contractor's past performance.[Footnote 29] This 
type of data is not currently being systematically captured and 
documented for use in contract award decisions. 

Lack of Priority and Accountability for Past Performance Hinders the 
Assessment Process: 

Several contracting officials acknowledged that documenting contractor 
performance was generally not a priority, and less than half of the 
contracting managers we talked with tracked performance assessment 
completeness. Some agency officials we spoke with said that a lack of 
readily accessible system tools and metrics on completeness has made it 
difficult to manage the assessment process. CPARS and CPS--assessment 
reporting systems used by DOD and DHS--do not have readily accessible 
system tools and metrics on completeness for managers to track 
compliance. According to officials who manage CPARS, a team is 
developing requirements for system tools and metrics but has been 
challenged to develop useful measures because of a lack of complete and 
reliable contract information from FPDS. OFPP officials similarly 
acknowledged there was a lack of tools and metrics for agency 
contracting officials to monitor and manage the process of documenting 
contractor performance. For example, managers currently do not have the 
ability to readily identify contracts that require an assessment, how 
many are due and past due, and who is responsible for completing 
assessments. According to these officials, holding managers accountable 
for outcomes without adequate tools to manage the assessment process 
would be difficult. 

However, a few contracting managers we spoke with placed a high 
priority on documenting contractor performance, noting that doing so 
tended to improve communication with contractors and encourage good 
performance. One Air Force Commander issued guidance reiterating that 
CPARS is a key component in selecting contractors; that Commander 
personally oversees the performance reporting system, requiring a 
meeting with responsible officials when a CPARS report is overdue. DHS 
officials recognized that more emphasis is needed on documenting 
performance assessments and told us they have included a past 
performance review as part of their chief procurement officer oversight 
program for fiscal year 2009. Other indicators that some management 
officials placed a high priority on documenting performance include the 
following: 

* Assigning past performance focal points--some activities assigned 
focal points, individuals with specific responsibilities that included 
providing training and oversight. At two Air Force locations, focal 
points also reviewed performance narratives for quality. 

* Designating assessing officials--some activities designated managers 
as the official assessor of contractor performance rather than 
contracting officers or program office officials. 

Who to assign accountability to is another challenge. OFPP generally 
views the completion of contractor performance assessments as a 
contracting officer function. However, many contracting officials we 
talked with stated they often do not have the required information to 
complete an assessment and have to rely on program officials to provide 
the information. Some contracting offices delegated responsibility for 
completing assessments to the program office but acknowledged program 
office officials have little incentive to complete assessments because 
they often did not see the value in them. We previously reported in 
2005 that conducting contactor surveillance at DOD, which includes 
documenting contractor performance, was not a high priority and that 
accountability for performing contractor surveillance was lacking. 
[Footnote 30] 

A Lack of Standardized Evaluation Factors and Rating Scales Limits 
PPIRS Usefulness: 

Differing number and type of rating factors and rating scales agencies 
use to document contractor performance limit the usefulness of the 
information in PPIRS. NASA's PPDB system has four rating factors, and 
the CPS database, which is used by other civilian agencies, has five 
rating factors. In contrast, DOD's CPARS system has a total of 16 
rating factors. Each system also uses a different rating scale. Table 4 
highlights these differences. 

Table 4: Comparison of Contractor Past Performance Systems Rating 
Factors: 

Rating factor: Quality; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Check]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Check]. 

Rating factor: Timeliness/Schedule; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Check]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Check]. 

Rating factor: Price/cost; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Check]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Check]. 

Rating factor: Business relations; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Check]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Management of key personnel; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Product performance; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Systems engineering; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Software engineering; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Logistics support; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Product assurance; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Other technical performance; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Management; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Management responsiveness; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Subcontract management; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Program management; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Empty]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Empty]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Empty]. 

Rating factor: Other; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] used by 
Defense and Energy[B]: Non-systems[D]: [Check]; 
Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian agencies: 
[Check]; 
Past Performance Database used by NASA: [Check]. 

Ratings and rating scales: 

Rating: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] 
used by Defense and Energy[B]: 
Unsatisfactory; 
Marginal; 
Satisfactory; 
Very good; 
Exceptional; 
Rating: Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian 
agencies: 
Unsatisfactory; 
Poor; 
Fair; 
Good; 
Excellent; 
Outstanding; 
Rating: Past Performance Database used by NASA: 
Poor/Unsatisfactory; 
Satisfactory; 
Good; 
Very good; 
Excellent. 

Scale: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)[A] 
used by Defense and Energy[B]: Systems[C]: 
Red; 
Yellow; 
Green; 
Purple; 
Dark blue; 
Scale: Contractor Performance System (CPS)[A] used by other civilian 
agencies: 
0 to 5; 
Scale: Past Performance Database used by NASA: 
1 to 5. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency contractor past performance systems and 
guidance. 

[A] Table does not include separate rating factors for construction and 
architect/engineering for CPARS and CPS. 

[B] Department of Energy switched from CPS to CPARS in November 2008. 
Homeland Security is expected to switch from CPS to CPARS in early 
2009. 

[C] Systems include new development and major modifications to existing 
systems. 

[D] Non-systems include services, information technology, and 
operations support. 

[End of table] 

Officials from GSA's Integrated Acquisition Environment, which has 
oversight of governmentwide acquisition systems, acknowledged the 
utility of PPIRS is currently limited by the differences in rating 
factors and scales. Because the ratings are brought into PPIRS as-is, 
aggregate ratings for contractors cannot be developed--the data are too 
disparate. As a result, contracting officials making contract award 
decisions may have to open and read through many ratings to piece 
together an overall picture of a contractor's performance. Ultimately, 
the lack of this information hinders the federal government's ability 
to readily assess a contractor's performance at an aggregate level or 
how overall performance is trending over time. 

Central Oversight of PPIRS Data Is Lacking: 

No one agency oversees, monitors, manages, or funds PPIRS to ensure 
agency data fed into the system is adequate, complete, and useful for 
sharing governmentwide. While GSA[Footnote 31] is responsible for 
overseeing, and consolidating governmentwide acquisition related 
systems, which include PPIRS, OFPP [Footnote 32] is responsible for 
overall policy concerning past performance,and DOD funds and manages 
the technical support of the system. In May 2000, OFPP published 
discretionary guidance entitled "Best Practices for Collecting and 
Using Current and Past Performance Information." Consistent with the 
FAR, this guidance stated that agencies are required to assess 
contractor performance and emphasized the need for an automated means 
to document and share this information. Subsequently, OFPP issued a 
draft contractor performance guide in 2006 designed to help agencies 
know their role in addressing and using contractor performance 
information. However, the guide was not intended to, nor does it, 
establish governmentwide roles and responsibilities for managing and 
overseeing PPIRS data. 

Efforts to Improve PPIRS and the Sharing of Performance Information 
Have Made Little Progress: 

Since 2005, several efforts have been initiated to improve PPIRS and 
provide pertinent and timely performance information, but little 
progress has been made. Several broad goals for system improvement, 
established in 2005 by an OFPP interagency group, have yet to be met. 
Likewise, a short-term goal of revising the FAR to mandate the use of 
PPIRS by all government agencies has yet to be achieved. 

OFPP acknowledges that PPIRS falls short of its goal to provide useful 
information to contracting officials making contracting decisions. When 
PPIRS was established in 2002, OFPP officials envisioned it would 
simplify the task of collecting past performance information by 
eliminating redundancies among the various systems. In 2005, the Chief 
Acquisition Officers Council,[Footnote 33] through an OFPP interagency 
work group, established several broad goals for documenting, sharing, 
and using past performance information, including the following: 

* Standardize different contracting ratings used by various agencies. 

* Provide more meaningful past performance information, including 
terminations for default. 

* Develop a centralized questionnaire system for sharing 
governmentwide. 

* Possibly eliminate multiple systems that feed performance information 
in PPIRS. 

However, little progress has been made in addressing these goals. 
According to OFPP officials, funding needs to be dedicated to address 
these goals and realize long-term improvements to the current past 
performance system. GSA officials who oversee acquisition related 
systems, to include PPIRS, told us that as of February 27, 2009, 
efforts remain unfunded and no further action had been taken to make 
needed improvements. 

The first step in securing funding, according to OFPP and GSA 
officials, is mandating the use of PPIRS. However, proposed changes to 
the FAR that would clarify past performance documentation requirements 
and require the use of PPIRS have been stalled. The proposed rule 
provides clearer instruction to contracting officers by delineating the 
requirement to document contractor performance for orders that exceed 
the simplified acquisition threshold, including those placed against 
GSA MAS contracts, or for orders against contracts awarded by another 
agency.[Footnote 34] In proposing FAR changes, OFPP focused, in part, 
on accountability by requiring agencies to identify individuals 
responsible for preparing contractor performance assessments. While the 
comment period for the proposed changes closed in June 2008, the 
changes have not been finalized. An OFPP policy official stated that 
the final rule is expected to be published by June 2009. 

Conclusions: 

With the federal government relying on many of the same contractors to 
provide goods and services across agencies, the need to share 
information on contractors' past performance in making contract award 
decisions is critical. While the need for a centralized repository of 
reliable performance information on federal contractors was identified 
in 2002 when OFPP implemented PPIRS, we identified several underlying 
problems that limit the usefulness of information in PPIRS for 
governmentwide sharing. These problems include the lack of 
accountability or incentive at agencies to document assessments in the 
system, lack of standard evaluation factors and rating scales across 
agencies, and a lack of central oversight to ensure the adequacy of 
information fed into the system. Any efforts to improve sharing and use 
of contractor performance information must, at a minimum, address these 
deficiencies. Until then, PPIRS will likely remain an inadequate 
information source for contracting officers. More importantly, the 
government cannot be assured that it has adequate performance 
information needed to make sound contract award decisions and 
investments. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To facilitate governmentwide sharing and use of past performance 
information, we recommend that the Administrator of OFPP, in 
conjunction with agency chief acquisition officers, take the following 
actions: 

* Standardize evaluation factors and rating scales governmentwide for 
documenting contractor performance. 

* Establish policy for documenting performance-related information that 
is currently not captured systematically across agencies, such as 
contract terminations for default and a prime contractor's management 
of its subcontractors. 

* Specify that agencies are to establish procedures and management 
controls, to include accountability, for documenting past performance 
in PPIRS. 

* Define governmentwide roles and responsibilities for managing and 
overseeing PPIRS data. 

* Develop system tools and metrics for agencies to use in monitoring 
and managing the documenting of contractor performance, such as 
contracts requiring an evaluation and information on delinquent 
reports. 

* Take appropriate action to finalize proposed changes to the FAR that 
clarify responsibilities and performance documentation requirements for 
contract actions that involve orders placed against GSA's Multiple 
Award Schedule. 

To improve management and accountability for timely documenting of 
contractor past performance information at the agency level, we 
recommend that the departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, 
and NASA establish management controls and appropriate management 
review of past performance evaluations as required and in line with any 
OFPP policy changes. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to OFPP and the departments of 
Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, GSA, and NASA. We received e-mail 
comments from OFPP, in which OFPP concurred with the recommendations. 
We received written comments from the other five agencies, which are 
included as appendixes III through VII. In their written comments, the 
agencies agreed with the recommendation on improving management 
controls and most agencies outlined specific actions planned or taken 
to address the recommendation. 

In written comments to the draft of this report, DHS did not agree with 
the figures contained in table 3 of the report regarding estimated 
contracts requiring an assessment and number of assessments in PPIRS 
for selected agencies. DHS stated that our numbers significantly 
understate the percentage of DHS contracts for which assessments were 
performed and are possibly inaccurate or misleading in how DHS compared 
to other agencies. DHS presented its own data and requested that we 
revise ours. We applied the same methodology across all civilian 
agencies, including DHS, and found no basis for using the numbers or 
methodology provided by DHS. For example, while DHS indicates we should 
not include delivery orders, as we state in the note under table 3, our 
estimates did not include individual orders issued by agencies that 
exceed the threshold. Therefore, we stand by our methodology and data, 
which as we stated in the report, presents a conservative estimate of 
the contracts that required an assessment. Also, we assessed the 
reliability of data we used and found it to be sufficiently reliable 
for the purposes of our analyses. As a result, we are not revising the 
figures in table 3. As noted in our report, improvements are needed 
across agencies for the management and accountability of timely 
documenting contractor past performance information. In its response, 
DHS agreed that significant strides need to be made in this area. 

In written comments to the draft of this report, GSA stated that our 
recommendation should be changed to show that the FAR Council in lieu 
of agency chief acquisition officers would be involved in developing 
and disseminating governmentwide acquisition policy through the FAR. 
According to an OFPP policy official, while the FAR Council would be 
involved in evaluating policy and making changes to the FAR, OFPP is 
responsible for overall policy concerning past performance and can make 
policy changes without involving the FAR Council. In line with our 
recommendations, this would include standards for evaluating past 
performance and policies for collecting and maintaining the 
information. As we state in the report, the Chief Acquisition Officers 
Council, through an OFPP interagency work group, has already 
established several broad goals for documenting, sharing, and using 
past performance information. Our recommendations to OFPP, in 
coordination with this Council, are in part aimed at actions necessary 
to address these goals. These recommendations could be implemented 
through an OFPP policy memorandum and could result in changes to the 
FAR, which we recognize would need to be coordinated through the FAR 
Council as appropriate. As a result, we are not making changes to the 
recommendation. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 
days from the date of this report. We will then send copies of this 
report to interested congressional committees; the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Defense; the 
Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security; the Secretary of the Department of 
Energy; the Secretary of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration; and the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration. In addition, we will also make copies available at no 
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have questions about this report or need additional information, 
please contact me at (202) 512-4146 or LasowskiA@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 
be found on the last page of this report. See appendix VIII for a list 
of key contributors to this report. 

Signed by: 

Anne-Marie Lasowski: 
Director Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To assess agencies' use of information on contractors' past performance 
in awarding contracts, we reviewed and analyzed the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) and Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) 
guidance on use of past performance. We also reviewed source selection 
guidance for the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy 
(DOE), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration (NASA), and the General Services Administration 
(GSA)--agencies accounting for a large percentage of federal 
contractors. To obtain agency contracting officials' views on using 
past performance, we used FPDS-NG data to select 11 buying offices 
across the agencies to provide a cross-section of buying activities. At 
these locations, we interviewed 121 contracting officials including 
supervisory contract personnel to include division/branch contracting 
managers, contracting officers, and contract specialists to discuss 1) 
how past performance factored into the contract award decision, 2) 
sources upon which they rely for the information, 3) completing 
contractor performance assessments, and 4) challenge in using and 
sharing past performance information. To identify the importance of 
past performance relative to other non-cost factors in specific 
solicitations, we used FPDS-NG data from fiscal year 2007 and the first 
eight months of fiscal year 2008, to identify 62 competitively awarded 
contracts--49 definitive contracts and 13 orders placed against 
indefinite delivery vehicle contracts. We selected these contracts to 
represent a range of contracts across different buying activities and-
-though not generalized to all contract actions within these agencies-
-represented a range of products and services, types of contracts, and 
dollar values as shown in appendix II. We obtained contract documents 
to verify the fields used in FPDS-NG to select the contracts, including 
type of contract and product service code, and found the data reliable 
enough for the purpose of selecting the contracts. For these contracts, 
we obtained source selection documents including sections M of the 
request for proposals, which described the evaluation factors for 
award, and the source selection decision document that described how 
past performance was evaluated for each offeror. We reviewed the 
evaluation factors for each solicitation to identify how past 
performance ranked in order of importance relative to other non-cost 
factors in the evaluation scheme and summarized the results. 

To assess the extent to which selected agencies in our review complied 
with requirements for documenting contractor performance, we analyzed 
FPDS-NG and PPIRS data and used information provided by the DOD CPARS 
program office. In estimating the number of contracts requiring an 
assessment for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for civilian agencies in our 
review, we aggregated contract actions in FPDS-NG[Footnote 35] for each 
year to identify the number of contracts that exceeded the reporting 
thresholds of $550,000 for construction contracts (FAR § 36.201), 
$30,000 for architect and engineering (FAR § 36.604), and generally 
$100,000 for most other contracts (FAR § 2.101). We excluded contracts 
that are exempt from performance assessments under FAR subpart 8.7-- 
acquisitions from non profit agencies employing people who are blind or 
severely disabled. For indefinite delivery contracts, including GSA's 
multiple award schedule, orders were accumulated against the base 
contract for each agency and counted as one contract if the cumulative 
orders exceeded the reporting thresholds. This analysis provides a 
conservative estimate of the number of contracts that require an 
assessment because it does not include individual orders that may 
exceed the threshold[Footnote 36] or contract actions that span fiscal 
years. For this analysis, we used contract number and dollar obligation 
fields from FPDS-NG and found them reliable enough for the purpose of 
this analysis. Because DOD uses different reporting thresholds based on 
business sectors--information that is not available in FPDS-NG--we 
obtained compliance reports from the CPARS program office for fiscal 
years 2006 and 2007, which included estimates of the number of 
performance assessments that would have been required for DOD 
components and the number of those contracts with completed 
assessments. To determine the number of fiscal year 2006 and 2007 
contracts with performance assessments for civilian agencies, we 
obtained and analyzed data from the PPIRS program office on contracts 
with assessments, including the number of assessments against GSA MAS 
contracts, as of February 26, 2009. To assess the reliability of data 
provided, we accessed the PPIRS system and compared the number of 
contracts with assessments with those provided by the CPARS and PPIRS 
program offices, and found the data sufficiently reliable for the 
purpose of our analysis. 

To assess the usefulness of PPIRS for governmentwide sharing of past 
performance information, we compared information in each of the three 
systems used to document contractor performance information including 
rating factors and rating scales. In addition, we met with agency 
officials who have responsibilities for managing the various systems-- 
including the Naval Sea Logistics Center Detachment, Portsmouth, which 
administers CPARS and PPIRS, and officials at NASA who administer the 
Past Performance Database. To identify challenges that may hinder the 
systematic governmentwide sharing of past performance information, we 
interviewed contracting officials from 11 buying offices regarding a 
number of issues to include 1) roles in the assessment process, 2) 
challenges in completing assessments, 3) performance information not 
currently captured that might be useful for selecting contractors, 4) 
and use of metrics for managing and monitoring compliance with 
reporting requirements. Finally, we met with OFPP, GSA, and DOD to 
discuss the extent of oversight of PPIRS data and roles and 
responsibilities as applicable. 

To assess efforts under way or planned to improve the sharing of 
information on contractor performance, we obtained and reviewed 
memorandums, plans, and other documents produced by OFPP including 
proposed FAR changes and any proposed past performance guidelines. We 
met with officials from these offices to discuss challenges already 
identified in sharing and using past performance information, goals 
they may have established for improving the system, and status of 
efforts to address them. 

Our work was conducted at the following locations: OFPP, Washington 
D.C.; GSA, Arlington, Va; the Air Force Space and Missile Systems 
Center, El Segundo, Ca; Hill Air Force Base, Ogden, Utah; the Army 
Communications and Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J.; the Army 
Sustainment Command, Rock Island, Ill.; the Army Contracting Command, 
Fort Belvoir, Va.; the Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, M.d.; 
the Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.; the Defense Contract 
Management Agency located in Arlington, Va.; DHS including the Customs 
and Border Protection, Washington, D.C., and the Transportation 
Security Administration, Arlington, Va.; NASA including the Goddard 
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, M.d. and the Johnson Space Center, 
Houston, Tex.; DOE including the National Nuclear Security 
Administration Service Center located in Albuquerque, N.M. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to February 2009 
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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II Information on Selected Contracts: 

Definitive contracts: 

Contract: 1; 
Department/Agency: Air Force;
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Utilities and housekeeping services; 
Obligations[B]: 539,962. 

Contract: 2; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Utilities and housekeeping services; 
Obligations[B]: 1,300,000. 

Contract: 3; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Guided missiles; 
Obligations[B]: 1,948,949. 

Contract: 4; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Research and development; 
Obligations[B]: 1,089,454. 

Contract: 5; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Electrical and electronic equipment components; 
Obligations[B]: 1,726,453. 

Contract: 6; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: ADP equipment software, supplies, equipment; 
Obligations[B]: 1,785,110. 

Contract: 7; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Metalworking machinery; 
Obligations[B]: 2,788,246. 

Contract: 8; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Research and development; 
Obligations[B]: 79,955,700. 

Contract: 9; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus fixed fee; 
Product-service: Research and development; 
Obligations[B]: 101,645,000. 

Contract: 10; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus incentive fee; 
Product-service: Space vehicles; 
Obligations[B]: 83,006,822. 

Contract: 11; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost no fee; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 7,970,232. 

Contract: 12; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Communications, detection and coherent radiation; 
Obligations[B]: 79,535,831. 

Contract: 13; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Communications, detection and coherent radiation; 
Obligations[B]: 628,839. 

Contract: 14; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Ammunitions and explosives; 
Obligations[B]: 51,253,912. 

Contract: 15; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Ammunitions and explosives; 
Obligations[B]: 25,284,323. 

Contract: 16; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus fixed fee; 
Product-service: Installation of equipment; 
Obligations[B]: 1,193,905. 

Contract: 17; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Ammunitions and explosives; 
Obligations[B]: 2,952,174. 

Contract: 18; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Ammunitions and explosives; 
Obligations[B]: 0. 

Contract: 19; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Aircraft components and accessories; 
Obligations[B]: 1,214,408. 

Contract: 20; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Weapons; 
Obligations[B]: 11,528,350. 

Contract: 21; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Research and development; 
Obligations[B]: 145,200,000. 

Contract: 22; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Research and development;
Obligations[B]: 3,619,418. 

Contract: 23; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost no fee; 
Product-service: Aircraft components and accessories; 
Obligations[B]: 1,441,200. 

Contract: 24; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price; 
Product-service: Ships, small craft, pontoons, and floating docks; 
Obligations[B]: 18,260,656. 

Contract: 25; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus fixed fee; 
Product-service: Research and development; 
Obligations[B]: 9,420,000. 

Contract: 26; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Combination; 
Product-service: Communications, detection and coherent radiation; 
Obligations[B]: 470,376,195. 

Contract: 27; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Combination; 
Product-service: Communications, detection and coherent radiation; 
Obligations[B]: 63,160,779. 

Contract: 28; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price; 
Product-service: Ship and marine equipment; 
Obligations[B]: 19,560,381. 

Contract: 29; 
Department/Agency: Energy; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Natural resources and conservation; 
Obligations[B]: 0. 

Contract: 30; 
Department/Agency: Energy; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus fixed fee; 
Product-service: Special studies and analyses - not R&D; 
Obligations[B]: 3,490,000. 

Contract: 31; 
Department/Agency: Energy; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus fixed fee; 
Product-service: Construction of structures and facilities; 
Obligations[B]: 0. 

Contract: 32; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price; 
Product-service: Maintenance, repair or alteration of real property; 
Obligations[B]: 2,257,370. 

Contract: 33; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 1,278,414. 

Contract: 34; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price; 
Product-service: Automatic data processing and telecommunication; 
Obligations[B]: 1,029,587. 

Contract: 35; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price; 
Product-service: Miscellaneous; 
Obligations[B]: 3,661,500. 

Contract: 36; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 1,158,445. 

Contract: 37; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Labor hours; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 2,709,800. 

Contract: 38; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Household/commercial furnishings and appliances; 
Obligations[B]: 849,439. 

Contract: 39; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Construction of structures and facilities; 
Obligations[B]: 21,815,402. 

Contract: 40; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Utilities and housekeeping services; 
Obligations[B]: 4,105,104. 

Contract: 41; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Utilities and housekeeping Services; 
Obligations[B]: 1,015,237. 

Contract: 42; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Research and development; 
Obligations[B]: 106,483,022. 

Contract: 43; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Research and development; 
Obligations[B]: 70,315,000. 

Contract: 44; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price incentive; 
Product-service: Research and development; 
Obligations[B]: 246,126,118. 

Contract: 45; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Instruments and laboratory equipment; 
Obligations[B]: 7,984,481. 

Contract: 46; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Construction of structures and facilities; 
Obligations[B]: 23,128,500. 

Contract: 47; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Space vehicles; 
Obligations[B]: 270,813. 

Contract: 48; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Combination; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 3,682,286. 

Contract: 49; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Operation of government owned facilities; 
Obligations[B]: 23,507,653. 

Indefinite delivery contracts: 

Contract: 50; 
Department/Agency: Air Force; 
Type of contract[A]: Time and materials; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 3,173,943. 

Contract: 51; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Communications, detection and coherent radiation; 
Obligations[B]: 32,863,535. 

Contract: 52; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 2,243,240. 

Contract: 53; 
Department/Agency: Army; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 6,936,725,979. 

Contract: 54; 
Department/Agency: Navy; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Ammunitions and explosives; 
Obligations[B]: 99,980,000. 

Contract: 55; 
Department/Agency: Energy; 
Type of contract[A]: Firm fixed price; 
Product-service: Construction of structures and facilities; 
Obligations[B]: 2,857,823. 

Contract: 56; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Labor hours; 
Product-service: Automatic data processing and Telecommunication; 
Obligations[B]: 6,501,230. 

Contract: 57; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price; 
Product-service: Instruments and laboratory Equipment; 
Obligations[B]: 35,728,080. 

Contract: 58; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Other; 
Product-service: Alarm, signal, and detection systems; 
Obligations[B]: 16,533,682. 

Contract: 59; 
Department/Agency: Homeland Security; 
Type of contract[A]: Other; 
Product-service: Professional, administrative and management support; 
Obligations[B]: 7,601,263. 

Contract: 60; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; 
Product-service: Special studies and analyses - not R&D; 
Obligations[B]: 1,604,607. 

Contract: 61; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Fixed price; Product-service: Utilities and 
housekeeping Services; 
Obligations[B]: 5,551,415. 

Contract: 62; 
Department/Agency: NASA; 
Type of contract[A]: Cost plus award fee; Product-service: ADP 
equipment software, supplies, equipment; 
Obligations[B]: 7,262,027. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] "Combination" applies to awards where two or more contract types 
apply. "Other" applies where none of the award types in FPDS-NG apply. 

[B] Contract obligations are from 10/01/2006 through 06/01/2008. 
Contracts numbered as 18, 29, and 31 were newly awarded and had no 
obligations recorded in FPDS-NG at the time we selected contracts for 
our review. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 
Acquisition Technology And Logistics: 
3000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3000: 

April 7, 2009: 

Ms. Katherine V. Schinasi: 
Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Schinasi: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft 
Report, GAO-09-374, "Federal Contractors: Better Performance 
Information Needed To Support Agency Contract Award Decisions," dated 
March 9, 2009 (GAO Code 120715). 

The Department concurs with the recommendation. A comment on the report 
recommendation is enclosed. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Shay D. Assad: 
Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy: 

Enclosure: As stated: 

GAO Draft Report Dated March 9, 2009: 
GAO-09-374 (GAO CODE 120715): 

"Federal Contractors: Better Performance Information Needed To Support 
Agency Contract Awards Decisions" 

Department Of Defense Comment To The GAO Recommendation: 

Recommendation: The GAO recommends that the Department of Defense (DoD) 
establish management controls and appropriate management review of past 
performance evaluations as required and in line with any Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy policy changes. (p. 21/GAO Draft Report) 

DOD Response: Concur. As cited in this draft report, DoD responded to 
Department of Defense Inspector General (DoDIG) Report No. D-2008-057, 
"Contractor Past Performance Information" dated February 29, 2008, by 
issuing an Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics) memorandum dated January 9, 2009. This memorandum requires 
eligible contracts to be registered within 30 days of contract award, 
past performance assessments to be completed within 120 days of the end 
of the evaluation period and to reconcile the Contractor Performance 
Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) database by deleting excess and 
outdated information. The CPARS is the DoD system that feeds the Past 
Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) referenced in the 
draft report. This requirement was further implemented by the 
respective Services and Agencies. 

There is an increase in registration of contracts and submission of 
performance assessments reports since the issuance of the memorandum as 
contracting offices are complying with the stated requirements. In 
addition, each Military Department and Defense Agency is required to 
submit a report to confirm compliance by March 31, 2009. The Department 
will continue to monitor compliance through reports such as the CPARS 
Status Report providing insight of the status of every CPAR in-process 
or complete across the organization; the Contract Status Report 
allowing managers to identify the status of all contracts registered; 
the Auto Register Report allows identification of contracts being auto 
registered from FPDS-NG feed to CPARS; and Processing Time Metrics 
Reports with information on completed CPARS within the 120-day goal. 

The Department will implement additional policy changes as issued by 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

April 9, 2009: 

Katherine V. Schinasi: 
Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
U. S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Schinasi: 

This is the Department of Energy (DOE) response to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report, GAO-09-374, "Federal 
Contractors: Better Performance Information Needed to Support Agency 
Contract Award Decisions," dated October 2009 (GAO-Code 120715). We 
appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft Report. 

DOE generally agrees with the findings and recommendations. With 
respect to the recommendations pertaining to the standardization of 
evaluation factors and rating scales, the Department believes that such 
standardization must consider and be able to reconcile the various 
contractor performance mechanisms that are used by agencies to assess 
contractor performance depending on the nature of the work and type of 
contract, including award fee and performance-based incentive 
mechanisms. 

DOE stands ready to support the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in 
its efforts to address the issues and recommendations contained in the 
report. 

Should you have any questions, please contact Ms. Sandra Cover of my 
staff at (202)287-1344. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Edward R. Simpson: 
Director: 
Office of Procurement and Assistance Management: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

April 8, 2009: 

Katherine V. Schinasi: 
Managing Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
U.S. Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Schinasi: 

DHS appreciates the opportunity to review Draft Report GAO-09-374, 
entitled, Federal Contractors: Better Performance Information Needed to 
Support Contract Award Decisions. We concur with the recommendations 
but nonconcur with the figures contained within Table 3 of the Draft 
Report. We respectfully provide the following comments for 
consideration in the Final Report. 

Recommendation: To improve management and accountability for timely 
documenting of contractor past performance information at the agency 
level, we recommend that the departments of Defense, Energy, Homeland 
Security, and NASA establish management controls and appropriate 
management review of past performance evaluations as required and in 
line with any OFPP policy changes. 

Response: DHS recognizes the importance of contractor performance 
evaluations in managing contractor performance and is increasing the 
emphasis on both the collection of Contractor Performance Information 
(CPI) and on the use of CPI in the evaluation of offerors. In Fiscal 
Year 2007, the Under Secretary for Management issued a department-wide 
policy letter emphasizing the importance of the collection and use of 
CPI. That was followed in Fiscal Year 2008 by a seminar covering DHS 
CPI policy and the application of that policy via the Contractor 
Performance System (CPS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval 
System (PPIRS). In March 2009, DHS initiated a department-wide program 
to both re-emphasize the need for collection of CPI and to train the 
contracting workforce on the use of the Contractor Performance 
Assessment Reporting System, a more robust system to which DHS is 
transitioning. 

DHS has promulgated guidance on collection of contractor performance 
information in the Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR) 
which supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the Homeland 
Security Acquisition Manual (HSAM). Furthermore, the HSAM specifies 
that performance assessments be conducted on task and delivery orders 
in addition to contracts. 

As mentioned previously, DHS does not concur with the figures contained 
within Table 3: Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment and Number 
of Assessments in PPIRS for Selected Agencies, Fiscal Years 2006 and 
2007 for DHS. The GAO numbers significantly understate the percentage 
of DHS contracts for which assessments were performed. DHS requests 
that the chart be revised to reflect the correct numbers. 

The table below reflects the estimated contracts requiring an 
assessment and the contracts with such assessments for the years 2006 
and 2007. DHS takes exception to the GAO numbers regarding the 
estimated contracts requiring an assessment, i.e., we believe those 
numbers are significantly overstated, which in turn results in the GAO 
percentage being significantly understated (e.g., for FY 2006 the GAO's 
percentage is only 7.2%, while the DI-IS numbers show it is 13.0%). 
While we still agree that significant strides need to be made in this 
area, we are concerned that the report reflects inaccurate and possibly 
misleading numbers, including but not limited to a comparison of the 
percentages with other agencies. 

In determining the number of estimated contracts requiring an 
assessment, DHS totaled all original DHS awards that did not include 
modifications, delivery orders or BPA Calls. DHS recommends that the 
report be revised to reflect the DHS numbers. 

Note that the GAO did not disclose to DHS their detailed computations, 
so it is unclear exactly how the numbers in the draft report were 
derived. As a result, we request that the GAO meet with us prior to 
issuing the final report in the event the GAO does not concur with our 
methodology. This will ensure that all parties can agree that the data 
is accurately represented to the end user of the report. 

Table: Estimated Contracts Requiring Assessments for FY 2006 & FY 2007: 
		
GAO Estimate: 
Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment - 2006: 4,487; 
Contracts with Assessments - 2006: 324; 
Estimated Percent: 7.2%; 
Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment - 2007: 4,131; 
Contracts with Assessments - 2007: 535; 
Estimated Percent: 13.0%. 
						
DHS Estimate: 
Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment - 2006: 2,483; 
Contracts with Assessments - 2006: 324; 
Estimated Percent: 13.0%; 
Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment - 2007: 2,162; 
Contracts with Assessments - 2007: 535; 
Estimated Percent: 24.7%. 
						
Difference: 
Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment - 2006: 2,004; 
Estimated Contracts Requiring an Assessment - 2007: 1,969. 

[End of table] 	 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Report and 
we look forward to working with you on future homeland security issues. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jerald E. Levine: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

GSA Administrator: 
U.S. General Services Administration: 
1300 F Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20405-0002: 
Telephone: (202) 501-0800
Fax: (202) 219-1243: 
[hyperlink, http://www.gsa.gov] 

April 10, 2009: 

The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro: 
Acting Comptroller General of the United States: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Dodaro: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, "Federal Contractors: Better 
Performance Information Needed to Support Agency Contract Award 
Decisions" (GAO-09-374). Substantive comments are provided below. 

1. The General Services Administration (GSA) agrees with the substance 
of GAO's findings and recommendations, with the exception that, in the 
audit's section on Recommendations for Executive Action, the reference 
to "agency chief acquisition officers" should be changed to "members of 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council, consisting of the 
General Services Administration, the Department of Defense, and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration." Although they confer 
with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), the three Council 
members develop and disseminate governmentwide acquisition policy 
through the FAR. Likewise, in the last paragraph of the 
"Recommendations" section, the reference to "OFPP policy changes" 
should read "with any policy changes issued by the FAR Council." 

2. Once the proposed FAR changes take effect, GSA will incorporate the 
new requirement to report past performance data on Multiple Award 
Schedule and Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts task/delivery orders 
in appropriate training materials. GSA will also issue implementing 
guidance for the various Federal Acquisition Service acquisition 
activities to improve past performance reporting and usage. 

Should you have any questions, please contact me. Staff inquiries may 
be directed to Mr. Steven Kempf, Assistant Commissioner, Office of 
Acquisition Management, at (703) 605-5527. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Paul F. Prouty: 
Acting Administrator: 

cc: Katherine V. Schinasi, Managing Director, GAO: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 
Office of the Administrator: 
Washington, DC 20546-0001: 

April 1, 2009: 

Ms. Katherine V. Schinasi: 
Managing Director: 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Schinasi: 

NASA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) report. GAO-09-374, entitled "Better 
Performance Information Needed to Support Agency Contract Award 
Decisions." 

In the draft report, GAO recommends that the Departments of Defense, 
Energy, Homeland Security, and NASA take the following action. 

Recommendation: To improve management and accountability for timely 
documenting of contractor past performance information at the agency 
level, recommend the establishment of management controls and 
appropriate management review of past performance evaluations as 
required, and in line with any Office of Procurement Policy changes. 

Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA will issue a 
Procurement Information Circular within 90 days to provide updated 
guidance for use of NASA's Past Performance Database. This updated 
guidance will enable more uniform Agency-wide compliance with the 
requirements of FAR Subpart 42.15. Contractor Performance Information. 

In addition, NASA will ensure e-mail notifications are sent to managers 
and supervisors for late and non-submissions of past performance 
evaluations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If you 
have any questions or require additional information. please contact 
Sandra Morris at (202) 358-0532. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Charles H. Scales: 
Associate Deputy Administrator: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Anne-Marie Lasowski (202) 512-4146 or LasowskiA@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Ann Calvaresi Barr, 
Director; James Fuquay, Assistant Director; Usman Ahmad; Jeffrey 
Barron; Barry DeWeese; Julia Kennon; Flavio Martinez; Susan Neill; 
Karen Sloan; Sylvia Schatz; and Bradley Terry made key contributions to 
this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Past performance must be evaluated in selecting contractors for 
negotiated competitive procurements expected to exceed the simplified 
acquisition threshold of $100,000, 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. See FAR §15.101-2(b)(1). 

[2] For purposes of this report, we focus on the use of past 
performance information in agencies' contract award decisions. The 
focus is not on past performance as considered in other points in the 
procurement process, such as responsibility determinations and 
suspension and debarment. See generally, FAR §§ 9.1 and 9.4. 

[3] FAR § 42.1501. 

[4] At a minimum, the solicitation must state whether all factors other 
than cost or price, when combined are 1) significantly more important 
than cost or price, 2) approximately equal to cost or price, or 3) 
significantly less important than cost or price. FAR § 15.304(d) and 
(e). 

[5] FAR § 15.305(a)(2)(i)(ii). 

[6] FAR § 42.1502(a). Agencies are not authorized to evaluate 
performance for contracts awarded under FAR subpart 8.7--acquisitions 
from non profit agencies employing people who are blind or severely 
disabled. FAR § 42.1502(b). 

[7] Effective January 29, 1999 the Director of Defense Procurement 
extended a class deviation to FAR § 15.304(c)(3) and 42.1502(a). Under 
this deviation, all DOD contracting activities are required to prepare 
an evaluation of contractor performance for each contract expected to 
exceed $5 million for systems and operations support; $1 million for 
services, and information technology; and $100,000 for fuels and health 
care contracts. 

[8] During the course of our review, DHS and DOE indicated they had 
contacted DOD regarding a transition to CPARS. According to DOD 
officials, several civilian agencies were dissatisfied with the 
functionality of their current system and contacted the CPARS program 
office, prompting DOD to initiate a 2-year pilot program allowing 
civilian agencies to use CPARS. 

[9] PPIRS is administered by DOD's Naval Sea Logistics Center 
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 

[10] Department of Defense Inspector General, Contractor Past 
Performance Information, Report Number: D-2008-057 (Arlington, Va: Feb. 
29, 2008). 

[11] The Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) made a number 
of recommendations to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics to include establishing requirements for 
registering of contracts within specified timeframes, completing 
contract performance assessment reports within 120 days from the end of 
contract evaluation periods, and requiring formal training on writing 
assessments. In response, DOD concurred with the recommendations and 
stated the Department would advise the Military Departments to 
implement them. DOD issued a memo on January 9, 2009, which reiterated 
requirements for past performance assessment reporting and that each 
military department and defense agency is to submit a report confirming 
compliance with DODIG's recommendations by March 31, 2009. 

[12] In this report, reliability refers to candid assessments that 
accurately reflect a contractor's performance. 

[13] Includes division/branch contracting managers and contracting 
supervisors. 

[14] Contractors are allowed to submit comments, rebutting statements, 
or additional information on past performance assessments (FAR § 
42.1503). Agencies have issued guidance in line with requirement and 
generally allow the contractor to submit comments, rebuttals, or other 
information for consideration prior to final assessment. 

[15] Solicitations generally allow offerors the opportunity to provide 
prior relevant, similar past performance information on contracts as a 
basis for the past performance evaluation. 

[16] FAR § 42.1502. 

[17] FAR § 2.101. 

[18] GSA's MAS program enables federal agencies to acquire commercial 
goods and services from schedule contracts that are indefinite 
delivery/indefinite quantity contracts. Federal agencies place task 
and/or delivery orders against these contracts. 

[19] OFPP has issued a proposed rule that clarifies that the 
requirement in FAR § 42.1502 applies to both GSA and other agencies' 
contracts or orders, but it has yet to be finalized. An OFPP policy 
official stated that the new rule is expected to be published by June 
2009. 73 Fed. Reg. 17,945 Apr. 2, 2008. 

[20] DOD guidance, for example, allows flexibility in deciding whether 
to assess contractors' performance on a total contract basis or an 
order-by-order basis that exceeds required reporting thresholds. NASA 
guidance, on the other hand, does not require, but allows, assessment 
of contractor performance on task or delivery orders issued under 
indefinite delivery contracts. 

[21] These numbers include indefinite delivery contracts including 
orders placed against GSA contracts. We did not include GSA in this 
table because agencies placing the order are required to document the 
assessment. 

[22] Department of Defense Inspector General, Contractor Past 
Performance Information, Report Number: D-2008-057 (Arlington, Va. Feb. 
29, 2008). 

[23] Termination for default is generally the exercise of the 
Government's contractual right to completely or partially terminate a 
contract because of the contractor's actual or anticipated failure to 
perform its contractual obligations. FAR § 49.401(a). 

[24] Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, 
Iraq Reconstruction Project Terminations Represent a Range of Actions, 
SIGIR 09-004 (Oct. 27, 2008). 

[25] According to OFPP and DOD officials, a proposed FAR Case 2008-016, 
Termination for Default Reporting--was opened on June 12, 2008, and was 
being drafted at the time of our review. 

[26] The July 23, 2008 memorandum stated that no later than 10 calendar 
days after issuing a notice of termination for cause under FAR Subpart 
12.4 or termination for default under FAR Subpart 49.4, regardless of 
contract dollar value, the contracting officer must report the 
termination to the Director, Defense Procurement, Acquisition Policy 
and Strategic Sourcing. According to DOD officials, as of January 7, 
2009, there were 19 entries in the DOD Termination List on the PPIRS 
site and included contractors performing work both in the United States 
and in Iraq. Dollar values range from under the simplified acquisition 
threshold ($14,000) to over $88 million at time of termination. 

[27] GAO, Defense Contracting: Contract Risk a Key Factor in Assessing 
Excessive Pass-Through Charges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-269] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 
2008). 

[28] FAR § 15.305(a)(2)(iii). 

[29] FAR § 42.1501. 

[30] GAO, Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on 
Department of Defense Service Contracts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-274] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 
2005). 

[31] GSA's Integrated Acquisition Environment is operated under the 
authority of OFPP and the Chief Acquisition Officers Council. As such, 
it has oversight of governmentwide acquisition related systems to 
include PPIRS. 

[32] Section 405(j) of title 41 of the U.S. Code requires the OFPP 
Administrator to issue guidance for agencies on the consideration of 
past contract performance information in awarding contracts, including 
1) standards for evaluating past performance, 2) policies for 
collecting and maintaining the information, 3) policies for ensuring 
that offerors have an opportunity to submit relevant past performance 
information and have it considered, and 4) the time period for 
maintaining and considering the information. 

[33] The Chief Acquisition Officers Council (the Council) consists of 
acquisition professionals in the executive branch; the council was 
established to provide a senior level forum for monitoring and 
improving the federal acquisition system. The Council works closely 
with OFPP to promote effective business practices in the federal 
acquisition system. 

[34] In April 2008 under FAR Case 2006-022, the OFPP and the Chief 
Acquisition Officer's Acquisition Committee for E-GOV proposed changes 
to amend FAR § 42.1502. 

[35] FPDS-NG data as of May 27, 2008. 

[36] Agency guidance differs on assessing indefinite delivery 
contracts. Some agencies require assessments for each order exceeding 
the threshold, while others allow flexibility to provide assessments on 
each order, or one for the base contract. 

[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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, 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 Web site, 
[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. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [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: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548: