By: Joseph A. Hackenbracht

From August 2, 2002 until July 14, 2004, Todd Construction, a general contractor located in Oklahoma, was awarded five indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts by the Savannah District of the Corps of Engineers for design and construction of projects in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Each contract was for a period of

By: Joseph A. Hackenbracht

For many years, the boards of contract appeals have considered challenges to performance evaluations and declined, for various reasons, to hear those cases. Then, in 2008, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that it possessed jurisdiction to address a contractor’s challenge of the performance rating it had been given by

By: Michael H. Payne & Elise M. Carlin

As recently reported in Washington Technology, on July 29, 2010, President Obama signed the Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2010 into law. This legislation amends the Clean Contracting Act of 2008, and allows the public to access the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

Contractors continue to be concerned about the impact that the filing of protests or claims will have on their past performance evaluations in negotiated procurements.  While it is never a good idea to file a frivolous protest or claim, it is improper for procurement officials to downgrade past performance evaluations simply because a contractor has

In an interesting decision issued by the United States Court of Federal Claims on November 25, 2008, in a case entitled BLR Group of America, Inc. vs. United States, the Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to consider a contractor’s claim that a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (“CPAR”) was “false and highly prejudicial.” The case

The Federal Acquisition Regulation, at FAR 36.201, requires government personnel to be fair and accurate in the evaluation of a construction contractor’s performance, but there is the inherent potential for an unfair and overreaching evaluation. Government personnel are required to use DD Form 2626 for performance evaluations. This form lists five major factors to be evaluated: quality