Representatives from dozens of IT companies asked pointed questions on Thursday about details surrounding the Contractor Performance Evaluation Scorecard (CPES) during a forum at the Department of General Services. The two-hour-long session delved into many topics. Here’s a quick primer on some of what came to light.
1. A full implementation likely will occur no sooner than 2017. State CIO Carlos Ramos said he expects an evaluation of the pilot starting in early 2016 to take six to 12 months. He said legislative hearings and follow-on legislation related to the scorecard likely will follow.
2. Many details remain to be hashed out. State officials and an industry task force are still discussing particulars, such as if the grading system will use an A through F letter grade or a 1 through 5 numerical rating. Other details, such as what happens to a rating if two companies merge, or if company subsidiaries are handled individually or collectively, also need to be ironed out.
3. Contractors ask why the state isn’t scoring itself. Several attendees commented that project success is a combination of good performance by both the state and the contractor. Some asked the state to consider a mutual score or the state to outright rate itself and post it publicly. Ramos said the state does assess its own performance, but those ratings typically are kept internal. Legislative and audit oversight remain public.
4. State wants “flexibility” to use ratings in future procurement evaluation. State agencies and departments will be asked to use the rating system, but to some degree it will be up to them to decide how to weight those scores in an RFP evaluation. Ramos said companies won’t be automatically disqualified from bidding if they haven’t attained a certain rating score threshold.
5. California chose fewer, simpler KPIs to improve objectivity and measurability. The image at the top left from the state’s presentation shows the five Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) the state decided on. Ben Flores assistant deputy director, Statewide Technology Procurement Division, said the state tried to get away from subjective, narrative-style evaluative measures in favor of simpler, objective measures.
6. Contractors are interested in putting incentives into scorecard. Some attendees asked if it’s possible to build in extra points into the RFP evaluation for demonstrated excellence during previous state projects. On a more granular level, other vendors said the scoring system must be consistent across agencies and departments. For example, does an A grade simply meet expectations, or does it go above and beyond the contractual requirements?
7. Small businesses seek inroads to participation. The performance evaluation scorecard will be limited to large projects under the California Department of Technology’s oversight at least for now. One small IT firm pointed out that those big projects usually are the territory of big contractors. Consequently, a big company might garner a stellar rating, while small businesses are rarely, if at all, scored. Therefore, is the scoring system a built-in competitive advantage for the large firms?
These observations are not comprehensive; much more was discussed. The Department of Technology has made its presentation materials available to the vendor community. Contact CDT for additional information.
