- Report Published -
|Feasibility Study on Implementing the Contractor Performance and Rating System (CPARS) into its Procurement Procedures|
|Department of General Services|
|HB 1240 (Regular Session, 2000)|
|The 2000 Virginia General Assembly approved House Bill 1240, which required the Department of General Services to:|
• Study the feasibility and appropriateness of implementing, in its procurement procedures, the Contractor Performance and Rating System (CPARS) currently utilized by the federal government.
• In conducting this study, the Department of General Services shall solicit comments from state and local agencies, the various professions and trades, and other interested persons.
This legislation was introduced to address an important objective intended to improve the Commonwealth's procurement process.
To conduct this study, DGS reviewed the various federal implementing directives for CPARS and developed a survey soliciting comments on CPARS implementation from agencies and institutions, local government, federal government, and the private sector. The federal government provided information on the implementation of CPARS. Commonwealth agencies and institutions, local government, and the private sector provided comments on CPARS and its usefulness to the Commonwealth's procurement process.
The survey results indicate:
• Agencies and institutions consider that the development of a vendor performance rating system would be beneficial to the Commonwealth.
• Local governments surveyed indicated that their current systems were adequate and were neutral on implementation of a new vendor performance system because they do not fall under DPS regulations.
• Vendors are concerned over several issues involving the use of a vendor performance rating system. Some of these issues are inaccurate evaluations being included in a vendor's record and subjective evaluations on "bad" projects. The construction industry does not believe a performance rating system should be applied to this industry.
• CPARS is a system used primarily by the federal government to track contractor performance on negotiated procurements in excess of $1,000,000. The majority of Commonwealth negotiated procurements are below this threshold.
• The administrative structure of this system is complex. For example, at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, they spend approximately $100,000 per year just for the administrative cost of the CPARS database. Additionally, they have approximately 20 people who spend more than 50% of their time administering CPARS. The federal government justifies the administrative support for this system based on the substantial dollar value of their contracts.
• Interviewees from the Air Force, Navy, and Army Materiel Command recommended that the Commonwealth not implement CPARS, as it is too complex and costly for typical Commonwealth procurements.
As a result of this review and survey information, DGS has determined that the implementation of a vendor performance and rating system would be beneficial to the Commonwealth for vendors other than construction. Further, the federal CPARS System would not be the model used because it is not applicable to the types of procurements conducted by the Commonwealth and because of the high administrative cost to the government to maintain the system. A vendor performance system tailored to the Commonwealth's needs can be developed in conjunction with eVA, the Commonwealth's electronic procurement solution.