Authority/Reference(s) State of Texas Procurement and Contract Management Guide; Texas Government Code §2262, Texas Government Code §2260, §2155.077 & 2155.089; 1 Texas Administrative Code§391.205; 34 Texas Administrative Code §20.50934; Texas Administrative Code §20.115;
Revision Date May 1, 2020

POLICY

State agencies are required to submit vendor performance to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Vendor Performance Tracking System (VPTS) to report positive and negative vendor performance. 

Exemptions to VPTS Reporting

The following types of agreements are exempt from VPTS reporting:

  • Open Enrollment contracts
  • Interagency and Interlocal contracts
  • Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) and Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)
  • Subrecipient/Recipient contracts (identified in DFPS Form 438, Contracting Relationship Determination Form)
  • Subcontracts
  • Competitively bid contracts that are not utilized up to $25,000 or greater

Even when exempt from VPTS reporting, contract staff should report when critical performance incidents arise or for unsatisfactory performance.

Reporting Requirements

Unless exempt, contract staff must submit VPTS information through DFPS Form 0147, Vendor Performance Reporting, to COS for contracts and Transactional Purchase Orders (TPO) with a value of $25,000 or more within 15 days of:

  • A critical performance incident; or,
  • Contract closeout.

Unless exempt, for contracts exceeding $5 million, VPTS reports must be reported:

  • At least annually, prior to renewals or extensions; and,
  • At each key milestone identified for the contract.

HUB VPTS Reporting

During contract closeout activities, the contract manager and the HUB Coordinator determine whether any HSP non-compliances are to be reported to the Comptroller through the VPTS process.
When reporting to VPTS, HUB compliance considerations are:

  • A single issue of HSP noncompliance that was addressed will not be reported on Vendor Performance Report.
  • Two or more issues will be evaluated for reporting to VPTS.

Critical and unsatisfactory performance (Grade of D and F)

Contractors who did not fulfill contractual requirements, did not meet best value criteria, or that are on corrective action plans when the contract is terminated must not be given a score higher than a C, per the State of Texas Procurement and Contract Management Guide.  
When DFPS reports a grade of F, the Comptroller requires the identification of potential factors for debarment:

  • Material misrepresentation;
  • Material breach of contract; or,
  • Fraud.

DFPS contract staff must make reasonable efforts to work with the vendor to resolve performance issues before reporting to VPTS.

Vendors may respond to a Vendor Performance Report with a grade of D or lower within 30 calendar days of report submission to VPTS by responding to vendor.performance@cpa.texas.gov. The Comptroller may work with DFPS and the vendor to achieve resolution and include any additional vendor and DFPS comments and clarification to the Vendor Performance Report posted publicly.

Once a negative (D or F) Vendor Performance Report is posted publicly, vendors may submit a protest within 10 days of report submission using the Vendor Protest Form to vendor.performance@cpa.texas.gov.

When DFPS purchases goods or services through the use of a HHS master contract, reporting a vendor’s performance must be coordinated with HHS-PCS.

Best value criteria considerations used in the original procurement are required information for reporting vendor performance. The contract manager must consult all agency personnel who have significant involvement with the contract, including the contract developer and the end user.

DFPS staff must report the following:

  • Satisfactory and exceptional performance at contract closeout. For example:
    • Delivery in advance of due dates;
    • Exceeds performance requirements;
    • Provides customer service above and beyond what is contractually required.
  • Critical performance issues upon occurrence. For example:
    • Assessment of damages or sanctions;
    • Conducting business in an unethical manner or otherwise violating procurement or contracting laws, rules, or policies;
    • Terminations for cause;
    • State or Federal Debarments;
    • Substantiated fraud, in coordination with Internal Audit and the State Auditor’s Office (SAO), including incidents where the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) or Office of the Attorney General (OAG) has provided a final report to DFPS.
  • Unsatisfactory performance at contract closeout, for example:
    • Unresolved deficiencies in performance;
    • Consistent failure to meet service levels or delivery standards;
    • Violating contractual terms and conditions.

As part of the VPTS reporting process, contract staff must rate the vendor's performance by selecting a grade of A, B, C, D, or F as defined in form 0147 Instructions (VPTS Reporting Instructions).

Grading Criteria for Reporting Vendor Performance to VPTS

Grade to be assigned

Criteria

A

Excellent

  • Best value for the good or service because it complied with all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents.
  • In full compliance with all material terms of the contract.
  • With complete or substantial customer satisfaction.

B

Good

  • Best value for the good or service because it complied with all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents.
  • In substantial compliance of all material terms of the contract or promptly remedied any instance of non-compliance with the material terms of the contract.
  • With substantial or adequate customer satisfaction.

C

Satisfactory

  • Best value for the good or service because it complied with all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents.
  • Substantially remedied a majority of the instances of non-compliance with the material terms of the contract.With adequate customer satisfaction.

D

Unsatisfactory

  • Not the best value for the good or service because it did not comply with substantially all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents.
  • In substantial non-compliance of material terms of the contract and failed to remedy a majority of instances of non-compliance with the material terms of the contract.

F

Extremely Unsatisfactory

  • Not the best value for the good or service because it did not comply with all specifications and evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation documents.
  • In substantial non-compliance of material terms of the contract and failed to remedy a majority of instances of non-compliance with the material terms of the contract.In a manner that subjects the contractor to debarment pursuant to Subchapter G of these rules.

Source: Title 34: Texas Administrative Code, Section 20.509