INTERIM POLICY NOTICE
18 Mar 98
EFFECTIVE DATE/IMPLEMENTATION: 18 Mar 98
1. This notice implements revisions to AFMC Pamphlet 64-113, Source Selection Activities Guide, Volume 1, Performance Risk Assessment Group (PRAG) Guide.
2. Previous guidance to the PRAG relative to past performance did not make it clear that, (a) prior to determining relevance, it is necessary to carefully screen PPI when firms have merged/consolidated; (b) PPI obtained from the end user may be considered by the PRAG in their overall past performance risk assessment, and; (c) PPI that is in dispute may be considered by the PRAG. This change now states that the PRAG can examine past performance data that is the subject of active litigation; it also allows the PRAG to consider PPI obtained from the end user as well as encourages the PRAG to make an initial determination of relevance when reviewing PPI on firms that have merged/ consolidated.
3. This IPN remains effective until changes to AFMC Pamphlet 64-113 are officially posted to the AFMC Home Page Electronic Publishing Distribution Library at http://afmc.wpafb.af.mil/pdl/afmc/.
4. Refer questions to Ms. Donna Hatfield, HQ AFMC/PKPA, DSN 986-0911.
Revision to AFMC Pamphlet
The PRAG guide is maintained by the Contracting Policy
and Process Division, HQ AFMC/PKP, 4375 Chidlaw Road, Suite 6, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5006 , DSN 787-6057.
This portion of the Section L instructions should be written to solicit information on the offerors' present and past performance to enable the PRAG to determine how closely the work performed relates to the evaluation areas and factors. Offerors should be requested to submit information they consider relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, corporate management, critical subcontractors, teaming contractors, or the relevant element of predecessor entities forming new companies by merger/consolidation.
The PRAG should screen the information provided for each of the referenced contracts to make an initial determination of its relevance to the current requirement. Such aspects of relevance include the type of effort (development, production, repair, etc.), and the type of requirement (weapon systems, information systems, engineering services, programmed depot maintenance, etc.). In the event of company merger/consolidation, the PRAG must consider whether the new entity created by the merger/consolidation is substantially different so as to negate the relevance of the PPI. Some typical factors to consider when determining whether a merged/consolidated company is substantially different from the time PPI was collected are: changes in management structure and philosophy; effect of merger/consolidation on internal operations; key personnel changes; anticipated changes to product lines/services; and geographical expansions, re-locations, and/or closings. PPI will tend to be less relevant as the changes in corporate attributes impacting the acquisition increase. The objective of the screening is to remove ...
Using the information furnished by the offerors, the PRAG should confirm by telephone at least one point of contract (POC) for each referenced contract, preferably the Program Manager. The POCs should, wherever possible, be Government employees with personal knowledge of the past performance of the contractor in question. In addition to Program Managers, POCs could include the end user, government agency and/or commercial customer, equipment specialists, systems engineers, contracting officers, ACOs, or pre-award survey monitors.
The analysis should include a comprehensive interpretation of the information gleaned from the questionnaire responses, from any staff interviews, CPARs, and from the other sources of offeror past and present performance data. Past performance data that is in dispute may be considered by the PRAG. When considering such data, i.e., facts in dispute or active litigation, the PRAG shall consult legal counsel so as not to compromise the Government's position in the legal proceedings. The objective is the assignment of a risk rating ...
This consideration must include an assessment of the management actions/efforts
accomplished utilized by the contractor to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts. For example, submittal of quality performance or other management indicators may substantiate that an offeror has overcome past problems. While ratings are arrived at...