Prior Experience and Past Performance as Evaluation Criteria in the Award of Federal Construction Contracts
Gao ID: GAO-12-102R October 18, 2011
Over the last 10 fiscal years, federal agencies have increased their spending on construction contracts, leading to obligations of almost $54 billion in fiscal year 2010. When awarding contracts, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires agencies to consider firms' performance records to help ensure that taxpayer dollars go to capable contractors. The FAR also provides agencies with broad discretion in deciding how they will consider firms' prior experience, which refers to whether the firms have done similar work before, and past performance, which describes how well they have done that work. As construction firms without prior federal contracting experience seek to gain entry into the federal marketplace, some may regard the consideration of these factors as an impediment. In response to your request for information on the consideration of prior experience and past performance, we reviewed (1) how selected agencies consider prior experience and past performance in awarding construction contracts and (2) the resources available to assist firms in gaining entry to the federal marketplace.
Agencies consider prior experience and past performance during three key phases in the award of construction contracts: preparing solicitations, evaluating proposals, and making responsibility determinations as to whether firms have the ability and capacity to successfully perform. Agencies have broad discretion under the FAR in deciding the acquisition method, evaluation factors, and their relative weights, as well as what prior experience and past performance they will consider relevant. The consideration of prior experience and past performance varied for the contracts we reviewed. Specifically, these factors were considered to a greater degree in procurements in which agencies weighed price and nonprice selection factors and to a lesser degree in procurements in which price was the determining selection factor. The consideration of prior experience and past performance is not limited to work performed under prior contracts with the government. Instead, agencies are to consider work performed on all contracts: federal, state, local, and private sector. We did not identify any instance in which an agency limited its evaluation of offerors' experience or past performance to only work performed on prior federal government contracts. We found that in almost all procurements we reviewed, the contracts were awarded to the offerors that received the highest rating for nonprice factors, such as prior experience or past performance. We identified only one procurement in which offerors received neutral past performance ratings because they lacked relevant past performance. Prior experience and past performance are also two of the elements considered in the responsibility determination, which is required for all contracts. All the contract files we reviewed contained evidence of a responsibility determination. Officials at USACE, PBS, CBP, and SBA told us that the consideration of prior experience or past performance is not an impediment to winning government contracts as offerors generally cite their prior work. However, they noted that small firms seeking to win federal construction contracts face challenges in building up relevant work experience, financial resources, and bonding capacity to compete for large contracts. Various resources are available from federal agencies to help firms without relevant experience or past performance gain entry to the federal marketplace, including outreach and education, subcontracting opportunities, mentor-protege programs, and SBA programs specifically designed to assist small businesses.
GAO-12-102R, Prior Experience and Past Performance as Evaluation Criteria in the Award of Federal Construction Contracts
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-102R
entitled 'Prior Experience and Past Performance as Evaluation Criteria
in the Award of Federal Construction Contracts' which was released on
October 18, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-12-102R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 18, 2011:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: United States
Senate:
The Honorable Jon Tester:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Subject: Prior Experience and Past Performance as Evaluation Criteria
in the Award of Federal Construction Contracts:
Over the last 10 fiscal years, federal agencies have increased their
spending on construction contracts, leading to obligations of almost
$54 billion in fiscal year 2010. When awarding contracts, the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires agencies to consider firms'
performance records to help ensure that taxpayer dollars go to capable
contractors. The FAR also provides agencies with broad discretion in
deciding how they will consider firms' prior experience, which refers
to whether the firms have done similar work before, and past
performance, which describes how well they have done that work. As
construction firms without prior federal contracting experience seek
to gain entry into the federal marketplace, some may regard the
consideration of these factors as an impediment.
In response to your request for information on the consideration of
prior experience and past performance, we reviewed (1) how selected
agencies consider prior experience and past performance in awarding
construction contracts and (2) the resources available to assist firms
in gaining entry to the federal marketplace.
Our review focused on components of three federal agencies: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) at the Department of Defense (DOD), Public
Buildings Service (PBS) at the General Services Administration (GSA),
and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We selected these agencies and components based on our
analysis of their fiscal year 2010 obligations for construction
contracts, as reported in the Federal Procurement Data System--Next
Generation (FPDS--NG).
To understand how agencies are to consider prior experience and past
performance, we reviewed the FAR and the three agencies' supplements
to the FAR, as well as other agency policies and procedures on source
selection and contract award. We then reviewed 29 contracts and orders
awarded in fiscal year 2010 by the three agencies, which we
judgmentally selected to help illustrate how regulations, policies,
and procedures are applied in different circumstances.[Footnote 1] The
results of our review of these procurements cannot be generalized
across USACE, PBS, CBP, or other agencies' construction procurements.
In addition, we interviewed policy, contracting, and small business
officials from the three agencies; their respective components; and
the district, region, or division offices responsible for the selected
procurements. Finally, we reviewed 43 GAO bid protest decisions from
fiscal years 2009 and 2010 that we identified as involving the
consideration of prior experience and past performance to gain
additional perspective on how these factors are considered.[Footnote 2]
To obtain information on the resources available to assist firms
seeking entry to the federal market, we conducted interviews with
policy, contracting, and small business officials at the three
selected agencies as well as with officials from the Small Business
Administration (SBA) and two industry associations. We also reviewed
information available to firms through the agencies' websites. For
additional details on our scope and methodology, see enclosure I.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 to October 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Agencies consider prior experience and past performance during three
key phases in the award of construction contracts: preparing
solicitations, evaluating proposals, and making responsibility
determinations as to whether firms have the ability and capacity to
successfully perform. Agencies have broad discretion under the FAR in
deciding the acquisition method, evaluation factors, and their
relative weights, as well as what prior experience and past
performance they will consider relevant. The consideration of prior
experience and past performance varied for the contracts we reviewed.
Specifically, these factors were considered to a greater degree in
procurements in which agencies weighed price and nonprice selection
factors and to a lesser degree in procurements in which price was the
determining selection factor. The consideration of prior experience
and past performance is not limited to work performed under prior
contracts with the government. Instead, agencies are to consider work
performed on all contracts: federal, state, local, and private sector.
We did not identify any instance in which an agency limited its
evaluation of offerors' experience or past performance to only work
performed on prior federal government contracts. We found that in
almost all procurements we reviewed, the contracts were awarded to the
offerors that received the highest rating for nonprice factors, such
as prior experience or past performance. We identified only one
procurement in which offerors received neutral past performance
ratings because they lacked relevant past performance. Prior
experience and past performance are also two of the elements
considered in the responsibility determination, which is required for
all contracts. All the contract files we reviewed contained evidence
of a responsibility determination.
Officials at USACE, PBS, CBP, and SBA told us that the consideration
of prior experience or past performance is not an impediment to
winning government contracts as offerors generally cite their prior
work. However, they noted that small firms seeking to win federal
construction contracts face challenges in building up relevant work
experience, financial resources, and bonding capacity to compete for
large contracts. Various resources are available from federal agencies
to help firms without relevant experience or past performance gain
entry to the federal marketplace, including outreach and education,
subcontracting opportunities, mentor-protégé programs, and SBA
programs specifically designed to assist small businesses.
We provided DOD, DHS, GSA, and SBA a draft of this report for their
review and comment. In its written comments, DHS noted that it remains
committed to awarding contracts in compliance with applicable
regulations and continuing efforts to help small firms do business
with DHS. SBA provided technical comments that were incorporated into
the report, as appropriate, while DOD and GSA informed us they had no
comments.
Background:
Federal agencies rely on construction contractors to build new
structures and facilities as well as to maintain, repair, or improve
real property. In fiscal year 2010, federal construction contract
obligations totaled almost $54 billion.[Footnote 3] As shown in figure
1, DOD accounted for the majority of construction obligations,
followed by GSA.
Figure 1: Percentage of Construction Contract Obligations by DOD, GSA,
and DHS, Fiscal Year 2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
DOD: 66.2%;
GSA: 9.3%;
DHS: 0.5%;
Other federal agencies: 24.0%.
Source: GAO analysis of FPDS-NG data.
[End of figure]
USACE, which has both a military and civil works program, accounted
for approximately 59 percent of DOD's obligations for construction
contracts in fiscal year 2010.[Footnote 4] Within GSA, PBS--which
acquires space on behalf of the federal government through new
construction and leasing and acts as a caretaker for federal
properties across the country--accounted for almost all of GSA's
construction contract obligations. For DHS, CBP accounted for almost a
quarter of the department's fiscal year 2010 construction obligations,
much of which was for the construction and maintenance of land ports
of entry.[Footnote 5] Table 1 shows the obligations made by the three
components on construction contracts as well as the number of new
contracts awarded and orders placed for construction in fiscal year
2010.
Table 1: USACE, PBS, and CBP Construction Contract Obligations and
Awards, Fiscal Year 2010:
Component: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
Contract obligations[A]: $20,852,953,087;
Number of new awards: 7,534.
Component: Public Buildings Service (PBS);
Contract obligations[A]: $4,939,934,208;
Number of new awards: 8,183.
Component: Customs and Border Protection (CBP);
Contract obligations[A]: $68,623,709;
Number of new awards: 95.
Source: GAO analysis of FPDS-NG data.
[A] Contract obligation amounts include obligations on awards made in
fiscal year 2010, as well as modifications to contracts awarded in
prior fiscal years.
[End of table]
Agencies use two different methods to procure construction services--
sealed bidding and negotiated procurements. In sealed bidding, the
contract is awarded to the responsible and responsive bidder offering
the lowest price.[Footnote 6] For negotiated procurements, agencies
can use any one or a combination of source selection processes, based
on the specific circumstances of the acquisition. Agencies can use a
trade-off process, in which they consider nonprice evaluation factors,
such as technical capabilities or past performance, as well as price
in making the source selection. Alternatively, agencies can use the
lowest-price technically acceptable process, in which cost or price
will be the determining factor in selecting from among the technically
acceptable proposals. The best-value trade-off process generally is
used in acquisitions where the requirement is less definitive, more
development work is required, or the acquisition has greater
performance risk. In contrast, the lowest-price technically acceptable
process is generally used in acquisitions where the requirement is
clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is
minimal.
For negotiated procurements, an agency's decision to award a contract
to a particular offeror is based on the evaluation factors and
significant subfactors that represent the key areas of importance and
emphasis to be considered in the source selection decision and to
support the comparison of offers. The evaluation factors, significant
subfactors, and their relative importance are within the discretion of
agency officials. However, the FAR requires every source selection to
evaluate price or cost to the government, as well as the quality of
the product or service through consideration of one or more noncost
evaluation factors. Additionally, the FAR requires that agencies
consider past performance as an evaluation factor in negotiated
competitive procurements, unless the contracting officer documents the
reason that past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor
for the procurement. For example, agencies may decide that evaluation
of past performance may not be appropriate in lowest-price technically
acceptable negotiated procurements, in which the award is based on the
technically acceptable proposal with the lowest price. In addition,
the FAR provides that prior experience may be considered along with
other factors specified in the solicitation.[Footnote 7]
Agencies use a variety of contract types to procure construction
services. These include contracts for known requirements as well as
indefinite delivery / indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts. An IDIQ
contract may be used when an agency does not know the timing or
quantity of future deliveries at the time of contract award. After an
IDIQ contract is awarded, agencies procure goods and services by
placing delivery orders for products or task orders for services for
individual requirements. IDIQ contracts may be issued as a single
award to one contractor or to several contractors as a multiple-award
contract. For multiple-award IDIQ contracts, the FAR requires that
each awardee be given a fair opportunity to compete for subsequent
orders.[Footnote 8]
Prior Experience and Past Performance Considered in Three Key Phases
of Awarding Construction Contracts:
There are three key phases in which agencies consider prior experience
and past performance in awarding contracts, including those for
construction.
* Preparing the solicitation: The contracting officer develops the
solicitation, which requests that firms submit offers or bids to the
government to fulfill specified requirements and identifies how
relevant prior experience and past performance will be considered.
* Evaluating offers or bids: Agency officials conduct a comparative
assessment of offers against the source selection criteria in the
solicitation to select the firm that will win the contract.
* Making the responsibility determination: The contracting officer
determines whether an offeror has the ability and capacity to
successfully perform based upon an analysis of many areas, including
financial resources, operational controls, technical skills, and
quality assurances.[Footnote 9]
The degree to which prior experience and past performance are
considered in drafting the solicitation and evaluating offers or bids
varies primarily based on the method of acquisition--negotiated
procurement or sealed bid--being used. The three agencies we reviewed
used a variety of methods, ranging from negotiated procurements that
weighed technical and cost factors to sealed bids based only on price,
all of which involved some consideration of offerors' prior experience
and past performance.
Preparing Solicitations:
Agency solicitations specify how prior experience and past performance
will be considered. The FAR does not limit that consideration only to
work performed under prior contracts with federal agencies. Instead,
agencies are to consider offerors' efforts on all contracts: federal,
state, and local government, as well as private sector contracts.
However, contracting officers may specify in their solicitations what
they will consider as similar or relevant experience. The bid protest
decisions we reviewed reaffirm that agencies have discretion in
deciding what prior experience and past performance are considered
relevant. For example, a firm protested that limiting relevant past
performance references to work with a $2 million annual minimum value
excluded the majority of small firms with the requisite technical and
management capabilities from competition. However, GAO denied the
protest based on its conclusions that the dollar value required was
reasonably related to the agency's needs for a contractor that could
design and develop complex enterprise applications.[Footnote 10]
For the negotiated procurements we reviewed, past performance was
identified as an evaluation factor in a substantial majority of
solicitations. In some solicitations, prior experience was also an
evaluation factor, while in others it was a subfactor under another
technical factor. For example, in the five CBP solicitations for the
construction of land ports of entry, the solicitations specified that
the offerors' prior experience, along with their technical solution,
project management plan, and project schedule, would be evaluated as
part of the technical qualifications factor. All of the solicitations
we reviewed stated that offerors could provide prior experience or
past performance from any similar efforts. They were not limited to
only providing information on their experience or performance on prior
federal contracts. Also, some of the solicitations limited the time
period from which they would consider relevant experience. For
example, on a CBP order to replace flooring in an airplane hangar, the
solicitation stated that, in evaluating past performance, the agency
would only consider performance information from the past 3 years.
The weights given to prior experience and past performance varied,
largely depending on whether the agency used a best-value trade-off or
lowest-price technically acceptable process. Significant weight was
given to prior experience and past performance for the procurements we
reviewed that used the best-value trade-off process. In a substantial
majority of the solicitations using a best-value trade-off process,
price was weighted less heavily than nonprice evaluation factors, such
as prior experience and past performance. Further, of the 14 best-
value trade-off procurements we reviewed, 10 solicitations specified
that past performance was weighted as the highest evaluation factor.
Some of the negotiated procurements we reviewed were conducted in two
phases, and there were different evaluation factors for each phase.
[Footnote 11] Although both phases utilized a best-value trade-off
process, prior experience and past performance were weighed more
heavily in the first phase, with price as the more important factor in
the second phase.
In the negotiated procurements using the lowest-price technically
acceptable source selection process, prior experience and past
performance were considered but to a lesser degree than price, which
was the most important factor. For the lowest-price technically
acceptable procurements we reviewed, prior experience or past
performance were considered in four of the nine solicitations. For
example, in a USACE procurement for designing and building a military
training facility, construction experience on similar work was
considered, along with management effectiveness and the construction
schedule, in deciding which offers were technically acceptable. USACE
then awarded the contract to the technically acceptable offeror with
the lowest price.
For the 13 orders under IDIQ contracts we reviewed, 9 were placed
against multiple-award IDIQ contracts. Prior experience and past
performance can be considered when awarding the IDIQ contract, as well
as when orders are placed under multiple-award IDIQ contracts. The
extent to which prior experience and past performance were considered
when orders were placed varied. For example, in a PBS procurement to
renovate a playground, the IDIQ contract specified that orders would
be placed with the offeror with the lowest price, with no further
evaluation of past performance. In contrast, for one USACE order for a
parking lot at a training complex, offerors were evaluated, in part,
on their performance on prior orders placed under that multiple-award
IDIQ contract.
Evaluating Proposals:
Under the FAR and as reaffirmed in GAO's bid protest decisions,
agencies must evaluate competitive proposals and assess their relative
merits in accordance with the procedures and criteria specified in the
solicitations. In evaluating proposals, including an offeror's past
performance, the FAR allows agencies to use any rating method or
combination of methods, including color or adjectival ratings,
numerical weights, and ordinal rankings. All of the procurements we
reviewed used adjectival ratings. For example, in several procurements
we reviewed, past performance was rated as either outstanding, highly
satisfactory, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory.
Contracting officers can evaluate offerors' past performance using
information from a variety of sources and do not rely solely on past
performance information contained in federal databases, such as the
Past Performance Information Retrieval System.[Footnote 12] As we have
previously reported, information in these databases is often
incomplete and limited to performance on federal contracts. As a
result, contracting officers accept a wide range of information to
evaluate a firm's past performance but can also take action to verify
information submitted by firms. For some of the procurements we
reviewed, we saw evidence that offerors submitted and contracting
officers evaluated past performance questionnaires that contained
information about how the firm performed on prior projects, including
both commercial and government projects.
Offerors that were evaluated as having the highest rating for prior
experience or past performance won the majority of negotiated
procurements we reviewed. For all of these procurements, offerors--
including those that were ultimately not successful--submitted
proposals indicating they had at least some experience and past
performance that they believed to be relevant. However, in some cases,
the agencies deemed that the firms' prior experience and past
performance were not relevant to the requirements laid out in the
solicitation. For example, the prior experience of an offeror for one
CBP procurement was deemed not relevant because previous work involved
small rehabilitation, renovation, and paving projects that did not
require complex phasing and coordination efforts using architectural
and engineering designs as specified in the solicitation. In another
example, a firm's past performance was rated "unsatisfactory" and
"high" risk to the government because while the firm demonstrated it
had construction experience, it did not demonstrate that it had
experience building in extreme weather conditions or remote locations
as specified in the solicitation.
We did not identify any offerors that were evaluated less favorably
for not having government contracting experience. However, we
identified some evaluations that cited the offerors' prior government
contracting experience and positive past performance evaluations for
that work. For example, in the explanation as to why six offerors on a
CBP land port of entry project received an evaluation of highly
satisfactory for past performance, the contracting officer documented
in the file that they had successful experience working on prior
government contracts for similar projects.
The FAR states that offerors without a record of relevant past
performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past
performance--in other words, they must be given a neutral rating for
the past performance evaluation factor. In our review of the three
agencies' procurements, we identified only one procurement in which
offerors were determined to have no past performance. In that
instance, the procurement was being done through an order under a
multiple-award IDIQ contract and the only past performance information
considered relevant was for work performed on prior orders under that
contract. Since no offerors had performed work on other orders under
that contract, the contracting officer determined that all four
offerors had no relevant past performance information and gave each of
them a neutral rating in the evaluation. Consistent with what we found
in the procurements we reviewed, the contracting officers we met with
from the three agencies stated that firms rarely submit proposals that
do not indicate that they have prior experience or past performance.
Further, contracting officers explained that when they give offerors'
past performance a neutral rating, those offerors will not stand out
as much as firms with a highly satisfactory past performance rating.
In the 2009 and 2010 bid protest decisions we reviewed, we identified
only one protest that involved an offeror receiving a neutral past
performance rating. In that case, the firm's protest contended that it
deserved a rating higher than neutral for its past performance.
However, GAO denied the protest, determining that that the agency
reasonably concluded that the firm's submitted references for past
performance were not relevant to the procurement and that the firm did
not demonstrate how work on prior contracts was sufficiently similar
to warrant a past performance rating other than neutral.[Footnote 13]
Additionally, we identified a number of protests filed by offerors on
the basis that the agency did not evaluate prior experience or past
performance consistently with the criteria specified in the
solicitation. GAO sustained those protests in which it agreed that the
agency's evaluation deviated from what had been specified in the
solicitation, which occurred in 6 of the 43 protests we reviewed. For
example, one bid protest decision we reviewed stated that the agency
informed offerors that it would consider the experience and past
performance of subcontractors performing major aspects of building a
radiology imaging center. The protester asserted that the agency did
not consider the prior experience of its subcontractor that would
perform specialized shielding on the radiology room. GAO agreed and
sustained the protest.[Footnote 14]
Determining Responsibility:
Before any contract is awarded--regardless of the acquisition method
used--agencies must make a responsibility determination. To be
determined responsible, a prospective contractor must have, among
other things, adequate financial resources, a satisfactory performance
record, and the necessary experience. The determination of
responsibility, which is a pass/fail evaluation, differs from the
comparative past performance evaluations used in evaluating offers.
For all of the procurements we reviewed, we saw evidence of a
responsibility determination. In some cases, the files contained
documentation that specifically assessed responsibility, including the
offerors' prior experience and past performance. For example, for a
USACE contract to repair and clean equipment facilities, the file
contained a memorandum documenting the contracting officer's
assessment of responsibility, which included a review of the
contractor's performance records and experience data. However, in most
cases the responsibility determination was documented through the
signed contract, which is all that is required.
For sealed bids, which constituted 2 of the contracts we reviewed and
almost 9 percent of federal construction contracts awarded in fiscal
year 2010, the responsibility determination is the only time when an
offeror's experience and past performance are considered. For sealed
bids, the responsible firm whose low bid, considering only price and
price-related factors, is responsive to the solicitation wins the
contract. Aside from determining responsibility, no further
consideration or evaluation of prior experience or past performance is
done or required for sealed bids.
SBA has final authority to determine the responsibility of small
business concerns.[Footnote 15] If a contracting officer determines
that a small business, which would otherwise be the successful
offeror, is nonresponsible, the case must be referred to SBA. SBA will
review the firm's credit, capability, competency, capacity, integrity,
and perseverence and determine the business either nonresponsible or
issue a certificate of competency. If SBA issues a certificate of
competency, it serves as the responsibility determination and the
contracting officer must award the contract to that offeror. None of
the procurements we reviewed involved situations in which the
contracting officer referred the case to SBA for a possible
certificate of competency.
Resources Available to Assist Firms Gain Entry to the Federal
Marketplace:
Officials from USACE, PBS, CBP, and SBA told us that the consideration
of prior experience or past performance is not an impediment for
winning government contracts as offerors generally cite their prior
work. However, one of the industry association representatives we met
with explained that based on discussions with firms across the
country, it appears that construction firms with commercial sector
experience, but no government contracting experience, are
disadvantaged when competing for federal contracts. Despite differing
views regarding whether the consideration of prior experience or past
performance is an impediment, both agency and industry association
officials agreed that small firms seeking to win federal construction
contracts face a variety of challenges, such as building up relevant
work experience, financial resources, and bonding capacity to compete
for large contracts. For example, performance and payment bonds are
required for construction contracts exceeding $150,000 to ensure the
firms have the financial capacity to perform the project and pay for
labor and supplies. The officials explained that many small firms have
limited bonding capacity due to their financial condition, which in
turn limits their ability to compete for contracts that exceed their
bond. To help address the challenges that firms with little to no
prior construction contracting experience may face in gaining entry
into the federal marketplace, agency officials identified a number of
federal resources that are available to firms, particularly small
businesses. These resources include outreach and education,
subcontracting opportunities and mentor-protégé programs, and SBA
programs.
Outreach and Education:
Officials from all three agencies we met with identified a variety of
outreach and educational resources available, particularly for small
firms, to help firms do business with the federal government. For
example, a contracting officer we met with stated that one challenge
new firms face in winning government contracts is understanding the
government contracting process. To help address this challenge, the
three agencies have small business offices at the headquarters and the
regional or division level.[Footnote 16] Specifically, at the region-
and division-level offices we visited, officials explained that they
conduct a variety of outreach events with firms seeking assistance in
competing for federal construction contracts. These periodic events
provide firms with information on marketing to the federal government
and preparing proposals, as well as opportunities to meet and network
with contracting officers and SBA officials. In addition, each agency
provides information about its organizational structure and
operations, key contact information, and solicitations and acquisition
initiatives on which firms can bid. Information about these and other
resources can be found on the agencies' websites, which are listed in
enclosure II.
Additionally, the three agencies' small business offices told us that
they conduct monthly meetings through which business owners can meet
one-on-one with the agency's small business liaison and contracting
officers. PBS officials also hold regular meetings with
representatives from different socioeconomic business groups, such as
service disabled veteran-owned small businesses, to provide counseling
and assistance on gaining entry into the federal marketplace.
Officials from PBS's small business office stated that they recently
started holding access forums that allow small firm owners one-on-one
meetings to market their services to potential customer agencies.
While one of the industry association officials we met with recognized
that the agencies have a number of outreach and education efforts, he
explained that it would be helpful if they could do more, particularly
in terms of holding events that are tailored to specific projects.
Officials from USACE, PBS, and CBP small business offices told us that
when a firm requests assistance with preparing an offer in response to
a specific solicitation, they refer the firm to the Procurement
Technical Assistance Centers.[Footnote 17] These centers provide firms
assistance on how to write a proposal, perform market research to
determine which contracts they are best suited for, position their
firms to compete for contracts, and bid on current federal procurement
opportunities.
For firms that lose a competition, one way they can gain additional
insights into the federal contracting process is to request a
debriefing from the agency. A representative from one industry
association we spoke with explained that debriefings are an important
tool for helping firms understand how they can improve their
competitiveness but noted that debriefings are not offered uniformly
across agencies and are sometimes not timely or thorough. DHS
officials explained they are training their contracting officers on
how to provide debriefings and encouraging debriefings to all
unsuccessful offerors as a matter of practice.
Subcontracting Opportunities and Mentor-Protégé Programs:
Officials from USACE, PBS, and CBP stated that one effective method
for new firms to enter the federal marketplace, particularly for
construction, is to work as a subcontractor for a prime contractor.
Working as a subcontractor enables a firm to build up relevant work
experience, establish a past performance record, become more familiar
with the federal contracting process, and increase its financial
capacity. Additionally, officials at all three agencies cited industry
days as networking events that can help firms find subcontracting
opportunities. These events are designed to help established firms
that contract with the federal government team up with new firms
seeking to enter the federal marketplace. Such arrangements not only
provide opportunities for the new firms, but larger contractors have a
vested interest in teaming up with small firms because a key element
to winning certain large federal construction contracts can involve
the submission of a subcontracting plan that specifies that a certain
percentage of the work will be performed by small businesses.[Footnote
18]
Another method for firms to enter the federal marketplace is
participating in mentor-protégé programs. A mentor-protégé program is
an arrangement in which mentors--typically experienced prime
contractors--provide technical, managerial, and other business
development assistance to eligible small firms, or protégés. The
protégés can then cite the work they performed under such an
arrangement when competing for future federal contracts. In return,
the programs provide incentives for mentor participation, such as
credit toward subcontracting goals, additional evaluation points
toward the awarding of contracts, and in some cases, cost
reimbursement. Overall, mentor-protégé programs seek to enhance the
ability of small firms to compete more successfully for federal
government contracts by furnishing them with assistance to improve
their competitiveness.[Footnote 19]
Small Business Programs:
There is a range of resources available to assist small firms through
SBA, which was created as an independent agency of the federal
government to aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small
firms and to preserve free competitive enterprise. SBA Procurement
Center Representatives and Commercial Market Representatives provide
counseling to small firms to help them compete for work with federal
agencies and ensure that small businesses receive a fair and equitable
opportunity to participate in federal prime contracts and
subcontracts.[Footnote 20] SBA also works directly with federal
agencies' small business utilization offices across the country to
increase small businesses' share of federal procurement awards.
In addition, SBA administers a number of programs designed to help
small firms, including the 8(a) Business Development Program and
initiatives targeted toward service-disabled veteran-owned, women-
owned, and HUBZone small businesses.[Footnote 21] For example, the
8(a) program was created to help small and disadvantaged businesses
compete in the federal marketplace. Once a firm becomes an 8(a)
certified contractor,[Footnote 22] SBA works with federal agencies to
match the small firm's qualifications with appropriate opportunities
where they can obtain federal contracts through competitive and
noncompetitive processes limited to 8(a) firms. For example, PBS
issued the three purchase orders we reviewed for building maintenance
and office renovations on a sole-source basis to 8(a) firms.
Participation in the 8(a) program is subject to a 9-year program term.
[Footnote 23]
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOD, DHS, GSA, and SBA for
review and comment. DHS provided written comments, which are
reproduced in enclosure III, that noted the department remains
committed to awarding contracts in compliance with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, obtaining fair and reasonable prices, and
conducting outreach and education efforts to help small firms do
business with DHS. SBA provided technical comments that were
incorporated in the report, as appropriate. DOD and GSA informed us
that they had no comments on the report.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense and
Homeland Security, the Administrator of General Services, and the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration, as well as
interested congressional committees. In addition, the report is
available at no charge on GAO's website at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any questions about
this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841 or woodsw@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who
made major contributions to this report are listed in enclosure IV.
Signed by:
William T. Woods:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
Enclosures - 4:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Scope and Methodology:
Our review focused on selected components from three federal agencies:
* Department of Defense's (DOD) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
* General Services Administration's (GSA) Public Buildings Service
(PBS), and,
* Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and Border
Protection (CBP).
We selected these agencies and components based on their fiscal year
2010 obligations, as reported in the Federal Procurement Data System--
Next Generation (FPDS--NG), for construction contracts, which includes
the construction of structures and facilities and real property
maintenance. In fiscal year 2010, DOD's construction contract
obligations were greater than all other federal agencies combined,
while GSA had the highest civilian agency construction contract
obligations. USACE and PBS had the highest fiscal year 2010
construction contract obligations of the components within their
respective agencies. We included DHS and CBP, which accounted for a
quarter of DHS's fiscal year 2010 construction obligations, in our
review even though they obligated significantly less on construction
contracts so we could obtain insights into how other agencies and
components consider prior experience and past performance when
awarding construction contracts.
To understand how agencies are to consider prior experience and past
performance, we reviewed the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and
the three agencies' FAR supplements, as well as other agency policies
and procedures on source selection and contract award. We then
reviewed 29 competitive and noncompetitive contracts awarded in fiscal
year 2010 by the three agencies to help illustrate how regulations,
policies, and procedures were applied.[Footnote 24] The competitive
procurements include 12 contracts and 13 orders under indefinite
delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, which were selected in
a nongeneralizable manner so our sample would contain a wide diversity
of characteristics, such as method of acquisition, type of
construction project, and dollar value. The noncompetitive
procurements include one contract and three purchase orders. For each
procurement, we reviewed documents from the agencies' files pertaining
to their acquisition plan, solicitation, source selection decision,
and other documents related to the consideration of prior experience
and past performance. For the 13 procurements made by placing orders
under IDIQ contracts, we reviewed the documentation associated with
the selected orders and the 9 contracts the orders were made
against.[Footnote 25] The results of our review of these procurements
cannot be generalized across USACE, PBS, CBP, or other agencies'
construction procurements. In addition, we interviewed policy,
contracting, and small business officials from the three agencies;
their respective components; and the district, region, or division
offices responsible for the selected procurements to obtain their
perspectives on how prior experience and past performance are
considered when awarding contracts. Finally, we reviewed 43 bid
protest decisions issued by GAO in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 that we
identified as involving the consideration of prior experience and past
performance to gain additional perspective on how these factors are
considered.[Footnote 26] These 43 bid protests were associated with a
range of procurements, including 14 that were construction-related,
and various federal agencies, including the three that were the focus
of our review.
To obtain information on the resources available to assist firms, we
conducted interviews with policy, contracting, and small business
officials at the three selected agencies as well as officials from the
Small Business Administration and two industry associations--the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the Associated General Contractors of America.
We also reviewed information available to firms through the agencies'
websites.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 to October 2011 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Enclosure II: Resources Available to Assist Firms:
Federal agencies' websites have dedicated sections to help firms,
particularly small businesses, learn how to market their services. The
sites provide a variety of resources available to help firms including
information on how to do business with the federal government and
tools for identifying potential contracting opportunities, as well as
information on upcoming training and networking opportunities offered
by the agencies. Listed below are links to the resources available on
the websites of selected agencies and components.
Small Business Administration:
Website: [hyperlink,
http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/contracting].
* Provides small businesses with information on basic steps to get
started in government contracting, working with the government,
contracting opportunities, and links to government contracting
policies and documents, such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Department of Defense:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/].
* Provides information on departmentwide programs and resources
available to small businesses, including links to Procurement
Technical Assistance Centers that provide training and counseling
assistance at no cost.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Website: [hyperlink,
http://www.usace.army.mil/about/Pages/Locations.aspx].
* Provides firms with information to locate contracting opportunities
in a particular district.
For example, to find opportunities in the Fort Worth District, click
on the "Fort Worth District" link.
- On the Fort Worth District website, select the "Business" tab, then
the "Office of Small Business" tab to display the district's small
business resources. Website: [hyperlink,
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/SBO/index.asp].
- The small business office page for each district, such as Forth
Worth, displays the district's upcoming projects along with tools and
resources.
General Services Administration:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/105221].
* Provides small businesses with agencywide contracting information on
selling to the government and researching potential business
opportunities, as well as training and counseling sessions.
Public Building Service:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/103328].
* Provides firms with information on bidding for federal construction
projects.
Department of Homeland Security:
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov/xopnbiz/smallbusiness/].
* Provides small businesses with departmentwide contracting
information on getting started, doing research, networking, business
opportunities, and opportunities for teaming with larger firms.
Customs and Border Protection:
Website: [hyperlink,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/contacts/contracting/bus_pro.xml].
* Provides information on small-business opportunities and events,
such as industry days.
[End of section]
Enclosure III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
October 12, 2011:
William T. Woods:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
441 G Street, NW:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: Draft Report GAO-12-102R, "Prior Experience and Past Performance
as Evaluation Criteria in the Award of Federal Construction Contracts“
Dear Mr. Woods:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the
U.S. Government Accountability Office's work in planning and
conducting its review and issuing this report.
The Department is pleased to note the report's positive acknowledgment
that the agencies reviewed, including U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, appropriately considered experience and past performance
as evaluation criteria in the award of federal construction contracts.
Although the report does not contain any recommendations for DHS, the
Department remains committed to:
* soliciting, evaluating, and awarding contracts in compliance with
the Federal Acquisition Regulation,
* obtaining fair and reasonable prices, and,
* conducting outreach and educational efforts to help small firms do
business with DHS.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft report. We look forward to working with you on future Homeland
Security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim H. Crumpacker:
Director:
Departmental GAO-0IG Liaison Office:
Enclosure IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
William T. Woods, (202) 512-4841, woodsw@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Johana R. Ayers, Assistant
Director; Morgan Delaney Ramaker; Kristine Hassinger; Julia Kennon;
John Lack; and Leigh Ann Nally made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] We originally selected 10 contracts from each agency based on data
available in FPDS-NG. However, upon review of the files, we excluded
one USACE contract as it was not a fiscal year 2010 award.
[2] Bid protests may be filed at GAO against procurement actions by
federal government agencies. A bid protest is a challenge to the award
or proposed award of a contract for the procurement of goods and
services or a challenge to the terms of a solicitation for such a
contract. Protests can also be filed with the agency responsible for
the procurement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. For the purposes
of this report, we only reviewed bid protests filed with GAO that
resulted in a decision published in either fiscal year 2009 or 2010.
[3] Construction contracts that involve building new structures and
facilities can be identified in FPDS-NG as product or service code Y
and construction contracts that involve maintenance, repair, or
alteration of real property can be identified as product or service
code Z.
[4] USACE's military program provides, among other things, engineering
and construction services to other U.S. government agencies and
foreign governments, while the civil works program is responsible for
investigating, developing, and maintaining water resource projects.
[5] CBP is the lead component for DHS responsible for implementing the
department's border security mission. Key areas include inspecting
travelers at ports of entry, inspecting cargo and goods at ports of
entry while facilitating trade, and securing the border between ports
of entry, for example to reduce illegal immigration through the use of
fencing and technology.
[6] FAR § 14.408-1(a)(3).
[7] FAR § 15.304(c)(2).
[8] FAR § 16.505(b)(1)(i).
[9] FAR § 9.104-1.
[10] SML Innovations, B-402667.2 (Oct. 28, 2010).
[11] This is referred to as two-phase design-build selection
procedures. Under these procedures, which can be used to enter into a
contract for the design and construction of a public building,
facility, or work, proposals are evaluated in phase one to determine
which offerors will submit proposals for phase two. One contract is
awarded using competitive negotiations. FAR §§ 36.300 and 36.303.
[12] Past Performance Information Retrieval System is a system created
by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy that is intended to be a
repository of performance information on federal contractors. GAO,
Federal Contractors: Better Performance Information Needed to Support
Agency Contract Award Decisions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-374] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23,
2009).
[13] Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation, Ltd., B-402380
(Mar. 10, 2010).
[14] Brican Inc., B-402602 (June 17, 2010).
[15] 15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7) and FAR § 9.105-2(a)(2).
[16] At headquarters, the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization (called Office of Small Business Programs at the
Department of the Army and other DOD components) advocates for small
businesses within the agency. At the regional or division level, staff
assigned to work on small business issues (small business specialists)
coordinate with the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization on their agencies' small business programs. For more
information on Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization, see GAO, Small Business Contracting: Action Needed by
Those Agencies Whose Advocates Do Not Report to Agency Heads as
Required, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-418]
(Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2011).
[17] Procurement Technical Assistance Centers are administered by DOD
as a result of the creation of the Procurement Technical Assistance
Program by the Congress to help firms compete successfully in federal,
state, and local government contracting arenas.
[18] Subcontracting plans are generally required for construction
contracts (or modifications to contracts) that are expected to exceed
$1.5 million and that have subcontracting possibilities. FAR §
19.702(a).
[19] In June 2011, we issued a report on the federal mentor-protégé
programs at 13 agencies, including controls the agencies used to help
ensure that the programs are beneficial to program participants. See
GAO, Mentor-Protégé Programs Have Policies That Aim to Benefit
Participants but Do Not Require Postagreement Tracking, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-548R] (Washington, D.C.: June 15,
2011).
[20] In June 2011, we issued a report on the Small Business
Administration's Procurement Center Representatives and Commercial
Market Representatives, including options for improving their
effectiveness. See GAO, Improvements Needed to Help Ensure Reliability
of SBA's Performance Data on Procurement Center Representatives,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-549R] (Washington,
D.C.: June 15, 2011).
[21] The Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone) program
provides federal contracting assistance to qualified small businesses
in historically underutilized business zones to increase employment
opportunities, investment, and economic development in such areas.
[22] To participate in the 8(a) program, a firm must be a small
business as defined by SBA, be unconditionally owned and controlled by
one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who
are of good character and citizens of the United States, and show
potential for success.
[23] GAO, Small Business Administration: Steps Have Been Taken to
Improve Administration of the 8(a) Program, but Key Controls for
Continued Eligibility Need Strengthening, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-353] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30,
2010).
[24] We originally selected 10 contracts from each agency based on
data available in FPDS-NG. However, upon review of the files, we
excluded one USACE contract from our review as it was not a fiscal
year 2010 award.
[25] Five orders in our sample were placed under the same IDIQ
contract.
[26] Bid protests may be filed at GAO against procurement actions by
federal government agencies. A bid protest is a challenge to the award
or proposed award of a contract for procurement of goods and services
or a challenge to the terms of a solicitation for such a contract.
Protests can also be filed with the agency responsible for the
procurement and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. For the purposes of
this report, we only reviewed bid protests filed with GAO that
resulted in a decision published in either fiscal year 2009 or 2010.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: