In a protest in front of the GAO, Matter of: Mark Dunning Industries, Inc., File: B-413321.4 Date: July 26, 2017, the agency (the Navy) reasonably evaluated awardee’s past performance as acceptable notwithstanding some number of allegedly negative interim contract administration reports where the agency considered the contractor performance assessment reports (CPARs) for the contract, which assessed an overall positive rating for the awardee.
Specifically, a former employee alleged that the contractor received some negative performance assessment worksheets (PAWs) and contractor deficiency reports (CDRs). Such PAWs and CDRs should have knocked the contractor out of contention due to the ratings assigned to past performance. The GAO decision stated at page 4 summed up the GAO’s analysis:
“The flaw in MDI’s protest is that MDI fundamentally overestimates the significance of the alleged PAWs and CDRs.3 Those documents are generated as part of the ongoing process of contract administration, and do not represent the considered and final opinion of the agency concerning the contractor’s performance. AR at 12. Such documents provide ongoing feedback on contract performance to resolve issues, or are created to contemporaneously document performance concerns. Id. By contrast, the CPARS are an aggregation and reconciliation of any interim evaluations of performance previously issued by the agency. Id.; AR, Tab 10, CPARS Definition. Of note, the CPARS process provides an opportunity for CoSTAR to formally respond to any agency concerns, and provides for additional supervisory review by the agency. AR, Tab 7, CoSTAR CPARS at 3-6. The CPARS, therefore, represent the agency’s considered opinion of CoSTAR’s past performance. While, in prior cases, we have concluded that an agency may consider information contained in CDRs to supplement or contextualize CPARS, we have not concluded that an agency must do so.”
For the full case sight, please click here: Past Performance Acceptable Notwithstanding some negative interim reports