Naval Sea Logistics Center Welcome to Quality Narrative

Naval Sea Logistics Center Welcome to Quality & Narrative Writing Training https: //www. cpars. gov 1

Naval Sea Logistics Center AGENDA l Policy l Contract Effort Description l Ratings l Narratives l Helpful Hints & Resources l Points of Contact 2 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center What is CPARS? Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Web-enabled application that collects and manages a library of automated contractor report cards. Four Modules within CPARS • CPARS (Services, IT, Operations Support and Systems) • ACASS (Architectural & Engineering Evaluations) • CCASS (Construction Evaluations) • FAPIIS (Collects Grantee & Contractor Performance & Integrity Information) 3 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center CPARS Regulatory Requirements Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Acquisition Regulation Supplements FAR 42. 1502 & 42. 1503: Agencies Shall Prepare an Evaluation of Contractor Performance and Submit to Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) FAR 15. 304: Past Performance Shall be Evaluated in All Source Selections for Negotiated Competitive Acquisitions CPARS Shall be Used to Prepare Contractor Performance Evaluations PPIRS Shall be Used as a Source of Past Performance Information in Source Selections 4 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center ACASS/CCASS Regulatory Requirements Collection of Contractor Past Performance Information Source Selections and Offeror Past Performance Information FAR 42. 1502 & 42. 1503: Agencies Shall Prepare an Evaluation of Contractor Performance and Submit to Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) FAR 15. 304: Past Performance Shall be Evaluated in All Source Selections for Negotiated Competitive Acquisitions (Includes Construction) FAR 36. 303 -1: Past Performance Shall be Included as an Evaluation Factor for Two-Phase Design-Build Source Selections FAR 36. 602: Agency Must Consider Offeror Past Performance in Selection of Firms for Architect. Engineer Contracts 5 https: //www. cpars. gov

Need for Improvement Naval Sea Logistics Center l Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), Government Accountability Office (GAO), & Department of Defense Inspector General (Do. DIG) Reviews/Audits – Eligible Contracts Not Being Registered in CPARS – Performance Reports Not Being Entered in CPARS in a Timely Manner – Narratives of Insufficient Detail to Show that Ratings are Credible and Justified Need to improve quantity & quality of information available in PPIRS so that source selection officials have greater confidence in reliability & relevance of information there This class will help you avoid these pitfalls. 6 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Policy Guidance l Policy l Applicability and Scope l Responsibilities Assigned l Frequency and Types of Reports l Administrative Information l References l Business Sectors l Rating Definitions l Instructions for Completing Forms Available at CPARS web site under Reference Material link. 7 https: //www. cpars. gov

CPARS/ACASS/CCASS Workflow Naval Sea Logistics Center Contract Registration Enter Proposed Ratings Validate Proposed Ratings PPIRS Contractor Comments Reviewing Official Comments 8 https: //www. cpars. gov

Contract Effort Description Naval Sea Logistics Center l Complete Effort Description Identifying: – – – Key Technologies Components Subsystem Requirements Complexity of Contract Acronyms Technical Terms l Critical to Future Performance Risk Assessment Groups and Source Selection Authorities l Note Scope Changes Since Prior Evaluation 9 https: //www. cpars. gov

Sample Contract Effort Description Naval Sea Logistics Center Contract Effort Description The contractor provides (ST) devices as well as training, technical support and software development to the Air Force. Sufficient? Yes or No 10 https: //www. cpars. gov

Sample Contract Effort Description Naval Sea Logistics Center NOT Sufficient Contract Effort Description The contractor provides (ST) devices as well as training, technical support and software development to the Air Force. Missing: – – Detail of Scope Complexity of Contract Key Technologies Definitions of Acronyms and Technical Terms 11 https: //www. cpars. gov

Sample Contract Effort Description Naval Sea Logistics Center Sufficient Contract Effort Description The Contractor provides Super Trainer (ST) devices as well as training, technical support and software development to the Air Force. 100 STs were provided during this option year. Commercial off the shelf (COTS) computer equipment and contractor developed software provide aircrews with initial and recurring threat recognition and avoidance training via an aircraft host. The ST creates a view of ground threats - missiles and anti-aircraft artillery as they would be seen through an aircraft window. The contractor develops training via real-world visual threat recognition and avoidance scenarios. Crewmembers are trained to recognize threats and to respond through action or communications. The system records trainee performance and provides remedial exercises as needed. The Contractor is responsible for site preparation and set up of training devices. They also develop technical manuals and test procedures for continuous learning. https: //www. cpars. gov 12

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample Project/Work Description Contractor provided covered walks with requisite utilities, construction of exterior shade structures, and the renovation of Building 744 Child Daycare Center (CDC). Renovation items included but were not limited to the following: abatement removal and off-post disposal of asbestos containing materials, installation of new standing seam metal roof, extension of underground drains to accommodate new roof drains, repair/sealing/painting exterior walls, replacement of HVAC system, demolition, extension and repair of interior partitions, replacement of ceiling grid/tile/light fixtures/diffusers/grilles, painting, replacement of plumbing fixtures, cabinetry, doors, thresholds, and flooring, and relocation of existing cubbies and lights. In addition, a new fire alarm was installed. Contains: • Detail of Scope 13 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Ratings & Narratives are the most important part of the Evaluation! 14 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Ratings & Narratives Rating Definitions Rating Exceptional Contract Requirements Exceeds Many – Gov’t Benefit Problems Corrective Actions Few Minor Highly Effective Very Good Exceeds Some – Gov’t Benefit Some Minor Effective Satisfactory Meets All Some Minor Satisfactory Does Not Meet Some -Gov’t Impact Does Not Meet Most -Gov’t Impact Serious: Recovery Still Possible Marginally Effective; Not Fully Implemented Serious: Recovery Not Likely Ineffective Marginal Unsatisfactory https: //www. cpars. gov 15

Naval Sea Logistics Center Ratings & Narratives Narrative Guidelines l Address Contractor Performance – Recent – Relevant Must Be: -Accurate -Fair -Comprehensive l Collect Input From Entire Program / Project Team l Provide Reader a Complete Understanding of the Contractor’s Performance 16 https: //www. cpars. gov

Ratings & Narratives Naval Sea Logistics Center Narrative Guidelines (Cont. ) l Narrative Required for Each Rated Element – Narrative Conventions Differ in ACASS/CCASS l Address – Rating Changes From Prior Reports – Benefit / Impact to Government l Recognize – Risk Inherent in Effort – Government’s Role in Contractor’s Inability to Meet Requirements l Indicate Major / Minor Strengths / Weaknesses https: //www. cpars. gov 17

Naval Sea Logistics Center Ratings & Narratives Narrative Guidelines (Cont. ) Program Reviews & Status Reports l Consistent with – Program Metrics – Ratings – Contract Objectives Earned Value Management (EVM) Data Award Fees/Incentives Certificates of Service Cost Performance Reports Inspection Reports Schedule l Document Problems & Solutions l Contain Non-Personal & Objective Statements 18 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample Unsatisfactory Narratives Management - Rating: Very Good The contractor a Program Management Qualityhosted - Rating: Exceptional Review on 16 -17 September. Production status The contractor is exceptional. They continually was closely reviewed for the eight systems provideonhigh quality. Production training and services. currently contract. milestones and CDRL's were on schedule. Delivery of the systems to the government are expected to be on time. 19 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample Unsatisfactory Narratives Product Performance: Exceptional The agency has been pleased with the performance of the pod and the program actions of Company X. 20 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample Unsatisfactory Narratives Technical (Quality of Product): Very Good No accessible work performed during this reporting period. 21 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CPAR Narratives Elements Assessed üQuality üSchedule üManagement of Key Personnel 22 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CPAR Narrative Element Assessed: Quality - Rating: Exceptional The contractor is exceptional. They continuously provide high quality training and services. Sufficient? Yes or No 23 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CPAR Narrative NOT Sufficient Quality - Rating: Exceptional The contractor is exceptional. They continuously provide high quality training and services. Missing: – Detail to Support Rating – Detail to Tell Entire Story – Supporting Documentation / Metrics 24 https: //www. cpars. gov

Sample CPAR Narrative Naval Sea Logistics Center Sufficient Quality - Rating: Exceptional Contractor has provided exceptional quality to our 40 worldwide locations during this reporting period. For example, ST requirements were changed and Contractor adjusted to providing 15 training sessions per month versus 10 without additional cost through use of an “express set up” module which requires less instructor preparation time. This allowed users to be trained 3 months more quickly than required. The contractor also. Actual aggressively represented Note: narratives should the government’s interest in dealing with their vendor to correct a go into even system software malfunction. They worked with the vendor to revise greater detail!to correct errors the terms and conditions of the warranty clause with no cost to the government. They also implemented a new risk management system which reduced potential risk actions by 50%. This also saved the government considerable stress and ensured a constant throughput of aircrew members trained. 25 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CPAR Narrative Element Assessed: Schedule – Rating: Very Good In our opinion, the contractor has done really well in terms of schedule. The Training Manager, Jack Jones is pleasant and easy to work with. He adapts to our schedule changes amazingly and never complains. He also went above and beyond and fixed our printer and fax without charging the government and he continued to meet all the contract objectives in the interim. Great job! Sufficient? Yes or No 26 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CPAR Narrative NOT Sufficient Schedule – Rating: Very Good In our opinion, the contractor has done really well in terms of schedule. The Training Manager, Jack Jones is pleasant and easy to work with. He adapts to our schedule changes amazingly and never complains. He also went above and beyond and fixed our printer and fax without charging the government and he continued to meet all the contract objectives in the interim. Great job! Missing: – Detail to Support Rating – Supporting Documentation / Metrics – Additional Issues: Using Individual’s Name Outside Contract Scope Subjective Phrases https: //www. cpars. gov 27

Sample Narrative Naval Sea Logistics Center Statements to Avoid ÑOutside Contract Scope ÑWe Hope ÑIn Our Opinion ÑWe Were Not Happy ÑIt Appeared ÑWe Did Not Like ÑWe Believe ÑWe Think 28 https: //www. cpars. gov

Sample CPAR Narrative Naval Sea Logistics Center Sufficient Schedule – Rating: Very Good Contractor successfully executed the delivery and training requirements for this period ahead of schedule. For example, there were 20 training site visits scheduled for this period however, the contractor conducted 31 visits in the same period of time. The contractor also met 100% of the 13 contract data requirements in a 45 day timeframe versus the 60 days allotted. This resulted in data requirements 14 -20 being completed earlier than anticipated. This was done with minimal supervision by the program office hence allowing more time for additional projects. A 20 site preventative maintenance visit ran behind schedule for the first 8 months of the reporting period due to equipment failures, but Contractor management was able to bring the visit back on schedule due to implementation of an aggressive quality management system and spares availability policy. https: //www. cpars. gov 29

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CPAR Narrative Element Assessed: Management Of Key Personnel Management of Key Personnel - Rating: Marginal The Contractor has exhibited marginal management of key personnel. While instructor resumes are due to the Contracting Officer at least 30 days prior to placing an instructor in class, 30% of resumes have been provided closer than this timeframe, some within a 7 day window. Two of these last minute resumes have been rejected with no replacement instructor being available, forcing a class cancellation. In addition, the Contractor has been unable to attract and retain qualified instructor personnel during this reporting period. The Instructor and Senior Instructor labor categories have experienced 40% and 35% turnover rates respectively. Contractor management is addressing the situation by aggressively recruiting at industry job fairs and in trade publications, but no improvement has been noted to date. Sufficient? Yes or No https: //www. cpars. gov 30

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CPAR Narrative Sufficient Management of Key Personnel - Rating: Marginal The Contractor has exhibited marginal management of key personnel. While instructor resumes are due to the Contracting Officer at least 30 days prior to placing an instructor in class, 30% of resumes have been provided closer than this timeframe, some within a 7 day window. 2 of these last minute resumes have been rejected with no replacement instructor being available, forcing a class cancellation. In addition, the Contractor has been unable to attract and retain qualified instructor personnel during this reporting period. The Instructor and Senior Instructor labor categories have experienced 40% and 35% turnover rates respectively. Contractor management is addressing the situation by aggressively recruiting at industry job fairs and in trade publications, but no improvement has been noted to date. Contains: – Detail to Support Rating –Corrective Actions – Documentation/Metrics – Objective Language https: //www. cpars. gov 31

Sample CCASS Narrative Naval Sea Logistics Center Overall Rating: Outstanding The contractor did an outstanding job during this project and there were no problems during this reporting period with Contractor XYZ. They always do a great job working with the government. Sufficient? Yes or No 32 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CCASS Narrative NOT Sufficient Overall Rating: Outstanding The contractor did an outstanding job during this project and there were no problems during this reporting period with Contractor XYZ. They always do a great job working with the government. Missing: – Detail to Support Rating – Supporting Documentation / Metrics – Additional Issues: Subjective Phrases 33 https: //www. cpars. gov

Sample CCASS Narrative Naval Sea Logistics Center Sufficient Overall Rating: Outstanding The contractor did an outstanding job during this project. The building remained open and operations continued full scale during the renovation. In fact, the number of clients utilizing the building increased by 15% and operations continued with no issues. There was a redesign of the project as the contractor determined the plans (provided by an outside A&E Firm) were not what was needed to meet certification requirements. The contractor was an active participant in the redesign, which included many meetings and time. Through the Contractor’s suggested Value Engineering Change Proposals, the project continued to remain within budget. There was also mold discovered during renovation however, the contractor was able to find a cost effective solution that allowed the government to save over $75 K. The Contractor also worked with CDC staff to accommodate any scheduling changes needed on their part due to special events and unanticipated issues. The Contractor met site security and safety requirements. There were no problems during this 34 reporting period with Contractor XYZ. https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Ratings & Narratives Utilization of Small Business Rating Subcontracting Rating ISR/SSR Benefits/Impacts Definitions Plan Met All Goals & Exceeded at Least One Met All Traditional Goals & at Least One Other Goal Accurate & Timely Multiple Significant Events of Benefit Accurate & Timely Significant Event of Benefit Satisfactory Good Faith Effort to Meet Goals Accurate & Timely Minor Problems; Major Problems w/Corrective Action Marginal Deficient in Meeting Key Plan Elements Inaccurate; Untimely Corrective Action Plan Required Unsatisfactory Noncompliant; Uncooperative Inaccurate; Untimely Multiple Significant Problems; 35 Liquidated Damages Exceptional Very Good https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Utilization of Small Business l Federal Supply Schedule & Multi-Agency Contract – Not Assessed for Individual Orders l Single Agency Contract, BPA, BOA – If CPAR is Reported at Delivery/Task Order Level, Not Assessed Unless Required by the Contracting Officer – Execution of Subcontract May Be Addressed in Narrative (Block 20) 36 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample CPARS Narrative Utilization of Small Business - Rating: Exceptional The contractor exceeded their 27% small business goal by 2 percentage points and met all of the other subcontracting goals. The contractor awarded a subcontract to a small business for mission critical information technology for this program. The contractor conducted three outreach events which directly led to award of subcontracts to Service Disabled Veteran Owned small businesses and HUBZone small businesses. The contractor exceeded the small business participation requirements of the contract that required the small business to be used for 25% of the R&D portion of the contract, by awarding 50% of this requirement to small business. The contractor submitted all required reports on time. Contains: – Quantifiable Accomplishments – Comparison to Plan Goals https: //www. cpars. gov –Type of Work Performed by SB 37

Sample Evaluation Narrative Naval Sea Logistics Center Implementation of Subcontracting Plan: Satisfactory. The contractor applied a good faith effort to achieve all small business goals; however, was unable to meet their subcontracting goal, because of the unforseen closure of a company that had been identified to supply a critical element of the project in their proposal. They complied with all small business participation requirements included in the contract and submitted accurate subcontracting reports on time. l Pros: – SB Rating Definition and Narrative Consistent – Tells Entire Story – Addresses Reporting Requirements 38 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Ratings & Narratives Narrative Guidelines l Due to Nature of Work (Low Risk Activities) May be Difficult to Obtain Rating Above Satisfactory l Note this Fact in the CPAR Narrative 39 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Sample Service Narrative Quality of Product or Service - Rating: Satisfactory This contract is for the collection of refuse at XXX Air Force Base located near Anytown, USA. As part of its services, Contractor XXX is required to pick up 87 dumpsters across an approximate 30 square mile area, 12 hazardous waste containers, and 7 bio-hazardous waste material containers at the Medical Clinic located at the base. Given the nature of the services performed for this contract and the schedule for refuse collection, it would be difficult to obtain above a Satisfactory rating for performance on this contract. During this evaluation period, Contractor XXX met all of its refuse collection requirements on time as stated in the contract. Further Contractor XXX ensured that all of the tops of the dumpsters were closed after dumping to ensure that no foreign object debris (FOD) entered the flight line area despite the locale being in an area prone to high winds. There were no incidents of improper storage or disposal of the hazardous waste or bio-hazardous waste material during this reporting period. Therefore, the rating of Satisfactory indicates performance within the requirements of the contract and that there were no problems encountered during this reporting period with Contractor XXX. 40 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Narrative Hints l Communication – Throughout the Performance Period – With Contractor and Within Government l Documentation – Record Significant Metrics / Events Throughout the Performance Period – “The Evaluation Should Write Itself” l Create a Working Evaluation – Draft On-Line – Draft Off-Line Document l Use Copy and Paste https: //www. cpars. gov 41

Helpful Hints Naval Sea Logistics Center Prior to Performance Period l Be Up Front – Identify Expectations – Discuss Areas to be Evaluated l Provide Policy Guidance to Contractors and Evaluators – During Post-Award Conference – Prior to Annual Evaluation l Leave Yourself Flexibility Don’t wait until the annual evaluation to make your contractor aware of performance! 42 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Helpful Hints During Performance Period l Communicate with Contractor – Provide Feedback l Document Performance Regularly – – – Status Reports Earned Value Management Data Monthly Certificates of Service Award Fee Evaluations Program Reviews Earned Contract Incentives 43 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Helpful Hints After Performance Period l Provide Contractor Draft Evaluation l Contractor May Provide Self Evaluation l Take Time to Acknowledge Contractor Concerns – Face to Face Meetings – Extend 30 Day Comment Period if Necessary l Document File if no Contractor Comments Received – Transmittal Letter Email – Phone Conversation – Efforts to Contact Contractor 44 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Helpful Hints Characteristics of a Lose-Lose Evaluation l Use as a “Big Stick” l Solicit Out of Scope Work l Establish a Negotiation Position l Rate Government Program Manager l “Nobody Grades as Hard as I Do” l Document Performance Outside of Contract https: //www. cpars. gov 45

Helpful Hints Naval Sea Logistics Center Characteristics of a Win-Win Evaluation l Fair l Relevant l Comprehensive l Repeatable Process l Timely l Accurate l Consistent 46 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Ratings & Narratives Bottom Line: Accurate and Complete Evaluations Help Ensure Better Quality Products & Services! 47 https: //www. cpars. gov

Forwarding Suggestions or Concerns Naval Sea Logistics Center l “Submit Suggestion” in CPARS and ACASS/CCASS l Contact webptsmh@navy. mil All suggestions will be considered! 48 https: //www. cpars. gov

Help Desk Naval Sea Logistics Center l Help Desk (Mon-Fri 6: 30 AM- 6: 00 PM EST) Commercial: 207 -438 -1690 l Email: webptsmh@navy. mil l CPARS Web Site: (https: //www. cpars. gov) – – – Feedback FAQ Policy Guidance Quality Checklist User Manual Training Information 49 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center Next Steps l Evaluate All Eligible Contracts and Orders l Complete CPARs in a Timely Manner l Improve Detail and Quality of Narratives – Ratings Credible and Justified 50 https: //www. cpars. gov

Naval Sea Logistics Center THANK YOU 51