• The Contractor Performance Evaluation Scorecard: Fact Sheet

    December 10th, 2015 by admin Categories: Blogs Tags: , , , ,

    CPES Fact sheet 12.15 FINAL

    The Contractor Performance Evaluation Scorecard (CPES) was created to strengthen state accountability, IT project governance and to increase overall the likelihood of IT project success for the State of California. The California Department of Technology (CDT) began this collaborative effort with the state IT and vendor communities in June of 2014. In addition to the development of CPES, CDT has undertaken several efforts to reform IT project delivery for the state.

    CDT formed the Contractor Performance Evaluation Scorecard Work Group as a cooperative effort to address the concept of creating an evaluation system for contractors on reportable IT projects. This Work Group was made up of staff from the State Technology Procurement Division within CDT, the Department of General Services, other state departments and volunteer members of the vendor community. The Work Group has worked collaboratively with input from state managers to create the CPES since the onset of the project and expects to continue collaboration as the CPES is implemented and IT projects evolve for the State of California.

    • 5 Key Performance Indicators (KPI)
    o Understandable
    o Meaningful
    o Applicable
    o Measurable
    o Objective

    • Aligns with common project challenges of Scope, Schedule, Cost and Quality
    • Evaluations will be done by the project/contract manager through the terms of the project contract
    • Appeals process for contractor
    • Ratings will be publicly available
    • Ratings on the books for 36 months
    • Ratings will be used in future procurement evaluations
    • KPIs will be baked into the RFP and contracts
    • A contractor with multiple ratings will be weighted and averaged

    Next Steps
    • Evaluation of the feedback from the vendor community
    • Determine multiple contract complexity weighting
    • Pilot the CPES on a project beginning early in 2016
    • Evaluate the results of the pilot and refine the CPES based on lessons learned
    • Release policy on the use of the CPES along with standard RFP and contract language
    • Training
    • Implement
    • Publish scores quarterly
    • Automate the CPES

    Feedback & Questions
    To provide feedback on the CPES or seek additional information, email


    1. Anonymous says:

      CPES is significantly flawed and may result in legal action against the State. Rather than seek to improve project/contract performance for the State it seeks to solely evaluate vendors using the logic that vendors are only to blame. Notwithstanding the verbal statements that have been said by the State (goals are to improve project/contract performance and project discipline), the outcome in the current model is entirely one-sided. It also turns out that although inclusion of State participation in the rating was considered it was discounted and excluded purposely. Why and to what end?

      Public reporting of the scores will subject the State to potential legal liability – imagine a poor interim grade assigned to a publicly traded company. Does this rating have the same weight as does analysis from Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg, Morningstar or other companies? Does the State realize a rating could potentially impact the share price of a publicly traded company? What if a private firm being considered for an acquisition gets a poor interim rating – does that kill that transaction? I can only imagine attorneys salivating at the prospect of the huge windfall they will see when they win the lawsuits…

      Does the State believe CPES will increase competition? On the contrary it will decrease vendor competition and increase costs. Vendors will be forced to increase services costs to accommodate risks of any project with CPES terms and conditions. That, or simply not bid – the more likely choice on significant projects.

      If the State is truly serious about improving projects and contract results, a professional contract management role and team is required. The CPES model rates vendors by someone actually on the project team (!) and no external remedy is proffered in the presented model. Can anyone really rely on a rating self-assessed? Think of that subcommittee meeting when it emerges that the project team did their own rating. There is no objective way any good or bad vendor rating (in the current model) can be relied upon with confidence thus marginalizing the value of the rating and simply not helping project/contract performance.

      Suggestion: change the C in CPES to “Contract”, honestly acknowledge that projects/contracts are a teams’ collaborative effort and establish a useful process assessing all participants. Includes business value/outcome of the total solution not just the standard project fundamentals of cost, scope, schedule and quality. Further, fix the problems with the current project reporting tool so it is useful and timely – don’t reinvent the wheel once again.

    Anonymous Commenting is Welcome. To have your name or website appear with your comment, fill out the form below. All Comments are moderated to prevent spam. Thanks for joining in the discussion!