# DLAD PGI

- SUBPART 15.3 [F17]SOURCE SELECTION

- PGI 15.304-90 Automated Systems Supporting Contractor Past Performance Evaluation

SUBPART 15.3 [F17]SOURCE SELECTION

PGI 15.304-90 Automated Systems Supporting Contractor Past Performance Evaluation

(a) Scope. This DLAD PGI subsection prescribes the mandatory procedures, guidance, and instructions for evaluation of contractor past performance as an evaluation factor in manually evaluated negotiated best value acquisitions for the Maritime, Land, Aviation, and Construction & Equipment Supply Chains.

(b) Definitions.

(1) “Score(s)” as used in this PGI subsection refer to ABVS assessments of a contractor’s delivery and quality performance on DLA contracts.

(2) “Classification(s)” as used in this PGI subsection refer to the PPIRS-SR assessment of a contractor’s delivery and quality performance on past DoD contracts, including DLA contracts.

(i) Classifications are comprised of a Delivery Score and a Quality color ranking.

(c) General Past Performance Information.

(1) When used in best value source selections, past performance information, including scores/classifications will be evaluated based upon a comparative assessment among contractors from which quotes/offers were received.

(2) Contracting officers are advised not to rely solely on the performance score/classifications, and should consider reviewing the data used to construct the performance score if the circumstances of the procurement dictate (e.g., significant price differential or close past performance assessments).

(3) Contracting Officers may wish to consider the following during the trade-off decision:

(i) item designation as a weapon-system or personnel support item;

(ii) inventory supply status and required delivery schedule;

(iii) limited sources of supply and industrial base concerns;

(iv) dollar difference between the low technically acceptable quoter/offeror and a higher-priced, higher scored quoter/offeror, and the presence of new quoters/offerors.

(4) Past Performance information used in source selection is confidential source selection information during the month in which it is effective, and as such, is protected from release under the procurement integrity rules (see FAR 3.104-4 and 3.104-5). The information is available only to the business entity to which it applies. The past performance information used in the source selection process must carry a restrictive legend substantially the same as the following: “Confidential Contractor Information – for Official Use Only.” This legend must appear on all hard-copy printouts. Release of past performance information to any other Governmental entity must have the concurrence of the local counsel. Release to any other private entity shall be strictly limited, have the concurrence of the local counsel, and be in accordance with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552) guidelines (see FAR Subpart 24.2, Freedom of Information Act, and DFARS 224.2, Freedom of Information Act). Any FOIA decision to release performance data to other contractors will be made on a case-by-case basis.

(d) Automated Best Value System (ABVS)

(1) ABVS is a computerized system that collects a contractor’s existing past performance data and translates it into a numeric score. The contracting officer then uses the score as an additional evaluation factor when making best value award decisions.

(2) ABVS Scores:

(i) Contractors receive DLA-assigned ABVS scores for their past performance in each Federal Supply Class (FSC scores). The FSC scores are based on DLA consolidated performance history. A contractor may have multiple FSC scores but will have only one DLA score, which is a compilation of the contractor’s FSC scores for all business conducted with DLA.

(ii) The ABVS score is a combination of a vendor's delivery and quality scores, and the scores range from zero to a perfect score of 100. If a vendor's score is less than 100, DLA provides the contractor the negative data upon which its score is based.

(iii) Scores are calculated daily based upon two years of data.

(iv) Delivery scores are comprised of and calculated as follows:

Delivery Delinquencies

- Number

- Severity

- Contractor caused Terminations, Cancellations, and Withdrawals

Formulas for Delivery Performance
Formula | Legend
DS = (OW*OS) + (AW*AS) | DS = Delivery Score OW = On-time Weight OS = On-time Score AW = Average Days Late Weight AS = Average Days Late Score
OS = 100*O/L | OS = On-time Score O = Number of line shipped on-time during rating period L = Number of line shipped during rating period
AS = greater of ((100-(D/L)) or 0) | AS = Average Days Late Score (AS range is 0 to 100 D = Total days late during rating Period L = Number of line shipped during rating period Delivery scores are derived from two sub-factors; Percent on Time and Average Days Late. The relative weights of those factors are set at 0.6 and 0.4, respectively.

For administrative purposes, the delivery rating period excludes the most recent 60 days. For ABVS purposes, delinquent lines represent shipments not shipped and/or received in their entirety by the Contract Delivery Date (CDD). Contractor caused delivery extensions, regardless of consideration paid, will be reflected in the delivery score.

(v) Quality scores are comprised of and calculated as follows:

Quality Complaints

- Product Nonconformances

- Packaging Nonconformances

Formulas for Quality Performance
Formula | Legend
QS = (PRW*PRS) + (PAW*PAS) | QS = Quality Score PRW = Product Weight PRS = Product Score PAW = Packaging Weight PAS = Packaging Score
PRS = 100*(1-(PRC/L)) | PRS = Product Score PRC = Number of product complaints during rating period L = Number of lines shipped during rating period
PAS = 100*(1-(PAC/L)) | PAS = Packaging Score PAC = Number of packaging complaints during rating period Quality scores are derived from two sub-factors; Product Complaints and Packaging Complaints. The relative weights of those factors are set at 0.8 and 0.2, respectively. Contractors having no data in the rating period are assigned scores of 999.9.

For administrative purposes, the quality rating period excludes the most recent 30 days. Repair, replacement, or reimbursement of quality and packaging defects will not provide relief of negative ABVS data.

NOTE: The above 60 and 30 day offset periods are NOT grace periods. Contractor caused discrepancies or delinquencies will be reflected in the ABVS as an indicator of past performance.

(3) Data Challenges. DLA will make negative quality and delivery data reflected in the ABVS score available to contractors daily via the ABVS Website. The contractor’s negative performance data will be posted before it is reflected in the ABVS score (Preview Period), to give contractors an opportunity to review and verify data. A contractor must challenge any negative data within the Preview Period to assure corrections are posted before calculation of the score. Contractors must submit challenges and substantiating evidence (e.g. invoices, DD Form 250s, modifications) to the ABVS Administrator. The "Center" field will identify the appropriate focal point.

For those identified as "DSCR," send challenges to:

Defense Supply Center Richmond

ATTN: DSCR-BPSC (ABVS)

8000 Jefferson-Davis Highway

Richmond, VA 23297-5516

Telephone (804) 279-6431

FAX (804) 279-5042

DSCRABVS@dla.mil

For those identified as “DSCC,” send challenges to:

Defense Supply Center, Columbus

ATTN: DSCC-BPSF (ABVS)

P.O. Box 3990

Columbus OH 43218-3990

Telephone Numbers: (614) 692-1381 or (614) 692-3383

Facsimile (FAX) Number: (614) 692-4170

mailto:DSCCABVS@dla.mill

For those identified as “DSCP,” send challenges to:

Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP)
ATTN: DSCP-BPSA (ABVS)
700 Robbins Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096

Phone: (215) 737-7844
FAX: (215) 737-7949

DSCPABVS@dla.mil

Note: The ABVS Administrator shall make every effort to resolve data challenges within ten working days. If the contractor and the ABVS Administrator can not arrive at a mutual agreement on challenged data, it becomes disputed data. Disputes which cannot be resolved will be elevated. Authority for resolution of disputed data is one level above the contracting officer. Award decisions resulting from reliance on disputed data must also be approved one level above the contracting officer.

For further details concerning ABVS Score calculations and contractor data challenge procedures, refer to the ABVS website at http://www.dscr.dla.mil/UserWeb/proc/ABVM/Abvm.htm

(e) Past Performance Information Retrieval System – Statistical Reporting (PPIRS-SR)

(1) PPIRS-SR is a web-enabled, government-wide application that collects quantifiable delivery and quality contractor past performance information from Federal contracting activities.

(2) PPIRS-SR Classifications:

(i) PPIRS-SR classifications are established on a Federal Supply Classification (FSC) basis.

(ii) Classifications are calculated monthly based upon three years of data.

(iii) Delivery performance is based on the total number of contract line items received and the percent of contract line items with on-time deliveries. Late deliveries have an added weight assessed based upon days late (shown in below table).

Formulas for Delivery Performance
Formula | Inputs
((1-(Total Weight for Late Deliveries / Total Line Item Number)) X 100) | Days Late: Late Delivery Weight: 6-30 days late 1 31-60 days late 1.5 61-90 days late 2 > 90 days late 2.5

(iv) Quality performance formula follows:

(Positive weighted data minus negative weighted data) / Contract FSC Line Item Total

Contractor quality performance is based on a comparison among all contractors within an FSC. Contractors will be grouped by color, representing their ranking within the FSC.

Color rankings are shown in below table:

Color | Percent Group
Dark Blue | High Five Percent
Purple | Next 10 Percent
Green | Next 70 Percent
Yellow | Next 10 Percent
Red | Last Five Percent

NOTE: If there is only one percentage group for an entire FSC, the group will be classified as Green.

Quality Performance Records to be used and the weight factors for each:

Record | Service | Positive Weight | Negative Weight
Bulletins | Navy | N/A | -1.0 (Red) - 0.7 (Yellow)
DCMA CAR Records (Level III and IV Corrective Actions – formerly Method C/D) | DCMA | N/A | -1.0 (Level 4) -0.7 (Level 3)
DLA Quality Records Depot New Contract Def (doc type 9) Direct Vendor Delivery Def (doc type 6) Medical (doc type B, C and D) | DLA | N/A N/A N/A | - 0.4 - 0.4 - 1.0
GIDEP Alerts | All | N/A | -1.0 (critical) -0.7 (major) -0.2 (minor)
* Lab Tests (Doc Type 4) | DLA | +.2/ +1 | -1.0 (critical) -0.7 (major) -0.1 (min)
Material Inspection Records (MIRs) | Navy | + 1 | -1.0 (critical) -0.7 (major) -0.2 (min)
PQDRs - Category 1 (DLA Doc Type 0) | ALL | N/A | -1.0 (Cat 1 or Doc Type 0) -0.7 (Cat 2 or Doc Type 1) -0.2 (Info)
Surveys (excluding Pre-Award Surveys) | DCMA and Navy | +0.7 | -0.7 (others)
Test Reports (1st Article, Production, etc) | Navy | +0.5 | -0.5

For further details concerning PPIRS-SR Classification calculations and contractor data challenge procedures, please refer to the PPIRS-SR Procedural Guide for Application Development at: http://www.ppirs.gov/ppirs-sr/ppirssrmanual102004.pdf

(f) Past Performance Assessments in ABVS and PPIRS-SR

(1) ABVS past performance assessments are displayed as scores. Delivery and quality scores are represented numerically on a 100-point scale, with 100 being a perfect score. These scores are displayed on the “Choose Awardee” screen in the DLA Preaward Contracting System (DPACS) for all entered quotes/offers.

(i) Evaluation of past performance is straightforward. Higher numerical scores represent high past performance assessments and lower associated risk. Lower numerical scores indicate low past performance assessments and higher risk. Contracting Officers may make comparative assessments of past performance simply by taking into account the numerical difference between individual scores and the number of contract lines those scores are based upon.

(ii) If a contractor’s ABVS FSC score is being challenged, indicated by a “C” on the “Choose Awardee” screen, Contracting Officers may wish to consult the ABVS site administrator to assess the magnitude of the challenge and its impact on the contractor’s score.

(2) PPIRS-SR past performance assessments are displayed as classifications. Delivery is represented numerically on a 100-point scale, 100 being perfect. Quality assessments, however, are based upon a color-coded, percentile ranking of comparative scores among all contractors with award information for the subject FSC.

Note: Access to PPIRS-SR classifications is accomplished through the PPIRS-SR website: http://www.ppirs.gov/ppirs-sr/ppirssr.htm Contractor classifications may be reviewed and analyzed utilizing the “Solicitation Inquiry” report.

(i) As with ABVS, PPIRS-SR delivery assessments are presented as a numerical score ranging from 1 (low) to 100 (high). High numbers represent high on-time delivery performance. Lower numbers equate to low on-time deliveries.

(ii) Quality assessments are ranked only for contractors in which inspection records are present for the subject FSC. This is a significant departure from the quality methodology employed by DLA through ABVS. In ABVS, contractors with award history are presumed to demonstrate satisfactory quality, unless discrepant records are received. Conversely, PPIRS-SR only assesses quality for awards in which Government inspection records are required and received. If inspection is not required, the award is not counted in the contractor’s quality assessment.

Note: Contractors with delivery records but no quality records for an FSC are ranked in the “Green” color ranking. Additionally, when no quality records exist for a contractor within an FSC, an asterisk (*) will be displayed in the “Quality Score” column on the “Solicitation Inquiry Report”.

(iii) Because there are occasions when contractors having no quality records may ultimately demonstrate better quality and less performance risk than a contractor in a higher percentile group (“Dark Blue” and “Purple”), absence of quality records does not preclude award to a contractor.

(g) Evaluation Using ABVS Scores and PPIRS-SR Classifications

(1) The Contracting Officer will first evaluate contractors using their ABVS scores for the solicited FSC in effect at the time of evaluation. The Contracting Officer will use a contractor’s DLA score to evaluate a contractor without an FSC score for that particular FSC. The Contracting Officer may consider the volume of business on which the FSC score is based as a measure of confidence in the score’s indication of performance risk. The Contracting Officer may choose to use the DLA score if the volume of business would tend to make the FSC-specific score an inadequate indicator of performance risk. The Contracting Officer also may use the DLA score if the FSC scores among contractors are relatively equal. For non-NSN items, the Contracting Officer will evaluate using a contractor’s DLA score in effect at the time of evaluation. Contractors with no performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably and will be assigned a “999.9” in ABVS. A “999.9” is used to designate those instances wherein the contractor has no past performance history, has no history for the particular FSC or has no history for the timeframe being rated.

(2) In order for the Government to assess performance risk, if the quoter/offeror having the lowest evaluated price also has an ABVS FSC score below 70 and would potentially be bypassed under best value in favor of a higher priced quoter/offeror with a higher ABVS FSC score, then past performance evaluation will be accomplished using PPIRS-SR, in lieu of ABVS, for all quotes/offers received.

(3) Evaluation of PPIRS-SR delivery assessments will be based upon a contractor’s score on a numerical scale ranging from 1 (low) to 100 (high). High numbers represent high on-time delivery performance. Lower numbers equate to lower on-time deliveries. A ‘0’ (zero) score with ‘0’ (zero) lines is used to designate those instances wherein the contractor has no history for the particular FSC being rated.

(4) In PPIRS-SR, Contractor quality will be assessed based upon color/percentile groups. Contractor quality assessments will be evaluated as follows:

Dark Blue assessments will be evaluated more favorably than Purple assessments;

Purple assessments will be evaluated more favorably than Green assessments;

Green assessments will be evaluated more favorably than Yellow assessments; and,

Yellow assessments will be evaluated more favorably than Red assessments

(5) Contractors with delivery records but no quality records for an FSC are ranked in the “Green” color ranking. Additionally, when no quality records exist for a contractor within an FSC, an asterisk (*) will be displayed instead of an actual quality score. Contractors with delivery records but without quality records will be evaluated as having no negative quality records within the PPIRS-SR.

(6) In the case of a contractor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available in the PPIRS-SR, the contractor will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably on past performance.

(h) Award Justification.

(1) Contract files must be documented with the rationale supporting all award decisions. The award decision must demonstrate how paying more than low price reduces performance risk. The award justification must be commensurate with the price difference between the awardee and the low quote/offer, i.e., the greater the difference in price, the stronger the award justification importance.

(2) For ABVS and PPIRS-SR awards, justification templates are available in DPACS to assist in file documentation. Choose the award justification template that most closely represents the particulars of the current award and enter requested information. These forms may be supplemented with additional information, as necessary.