GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Rule requires more reporting of contractors' past performance

• 81992
  

  Too bad the taxpayers don't get to see what their 44 pays for in the fed bureaucracy, bet there would be a whole lot less funding

  dan m ketter Posted July 7, 2009 1:07 PM
• 81952
  

  When you hear a contractor state,"that this is the best contract we ever got". When the initial employing contract was in the year 2000 to rehab the OR, and they are still in the hospital everyday. What does oversight do with the convenience factor. When the manager would have to let the contractor go then have to the bidding process all over again to employ a possibly a new contractor. It is easier to ask the existing contractor if he has the capabilities to do whatever the project manager needs done. Which results in the contractor, sub-contracting and from that point, we, as the federal entity,in this case the DofVA,may as well just issue them an employee ID badge.

  Ed Chenette Posted July 7, 2009 7:28 AM
• 81809
  

  One thing that would be extremely helpful is for IAE/GSA to publish an interface specification so that agency contract writing system vendors could integrate agency contracting systems with PPIRS. Today we have a situation where already overburdened acquisition professionals have to use yet another stand-alone system to get their jobs done. It's time to halt the duplication of effort.

  Peter G. Tuttle, CPCM Posted July 2, 2009 2:39 PM
• 81803
  

  PPIRS needs to build some additional functionality so it can be more user friendly and expand on areas of note - but, this is a much needed requirement that deserves more attention. Look at how resourceful the eBay rating system is!

  Brian Dunn Posted July 2, 2009 1:35 PM
• 81798
  

  Obviously the decision makers have no idea what the real problems are with KOs reporting past performance. PPIRS contains information from three different databases - ACASS (for A-E contracts), CCASS (for construction contracts), and CPARS (for service contracts). CPARS is an abomination of a reporting system. It is so hard to get anything accomplished in CPARS that it is really no surprise that there is very little service contract info available. ACASS and CCASS evals are far easier to accomplish - but those systems were designed by the US Army Corps of Engineers and CPARS was designed by the Navy. If CPARS were changed to be more like ACASS and CCASS, PPIRS would be a far more useful past performance repository.

  Brad Crawford Posted July 2, 2009 12:12 PM
• 81782
  

  I read this article and laugh. Obviously those involved in writing and commenting don't fully understand (1) the FAR requirements for reporting ... before and after the final rule and (2) the difference between CPARS and PPIRS. And by the way, if you think that reporting contractor's performance is the only contracting requirement not being met ... dream on!, this is only one of many.

  Art Posted July 2, 2009 7:59 AM