Share:
The appellant challenged three Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings that downgraded the appellant for failure to maintain the staffing levels it proposed. The appellant argued that the contract did not require consideration of staffing levels. and the agency was not harmed. ASBCA found the CPARS ratings were reasonable. CPARS ratings are the contracting agency’s opinion of the contractor’s performance. Additionally, the appeal was moot because the agency could not revise or replace the reports.
Appeal of St. Michael’s Inc., ASBCA Nos. 62226, 62271, 62272
- Appeal – The appellant challenged three CPARS ratings. The agency based its ratings on the appellant’s inability to maintain the staffing levels it had proposed. The appellant claimed the fixed-price task orders did not mandate specific staffing levels and the agency was not harmed by the staffing gaps.
- Decision – ASBCA sided with the agency. The board noted that the CPARS rating guidance suggested that ratings are based upon objective facts/ But the guidance does not establish criteria for individual ratings. Rather, the guidance expressly permits subjective observations to influence the ratings by including words such as “may” “should” and “subjective.” The board, therefore, concluded that CPARS ratings are the contracting agency’s opinion of several aspects of the contractor’s performance based on events that occurred during performance. Thus, the agency’s CPARS ratings were reasonably assessed.
- Mootness – ASBCA also found the appeal moot because the CPARS at issue expired. Therefore, regardless of the merits, the agency was unable to revise the reports or replace the ratings.
Thomas M. Craig of FH+H, PLLC appeared for the appellant. Daniel K. Poling and Mitchell A. Krock of DLA appeared for the agency.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
Share:
