Authority/Reference(s) State of Texas Procurement and Contract Management Guide; Texas Government Code §2262, §2260, §2155.077; 2155.089; 1TAC §391.205; 34TAC §20.509; 34TAC §20.115
Revision Date October 4, 2021

Policy

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

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

When DFPS purchases goods or services through an HHS master contract, reporting vendor performance must be coordinated with HHS-PCS.

Exemptions to VPTS Reporting

Although the following agreements are exempt from mandatory reporting, contract staff should report both positive and negative vendor performance regardless of exemption status. Reporting vendor performance in all circumstances allows for the agency to confidently renew and procure goods and services based on historical performance data.

The following types of agreements are exempt from reporting to VPTS:

  • 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)
  • Single Source Continuum Contracts (SSCC)
  • Subcontracts
  • Competitively bid contracts less than $25,000
  • Child Specific contracts entered into in order to avoid having a child without a placement

Reporting Requirements

Contracts and TPOs valued at $25,000 or Greater

Unless exempt, vendor performance must be submitted through DFPS Form 0147 Vendor Performance Reporting to COS within 15 days after:

  • A critical performance incident; or,
  • Contract termination (termination may be by cause, convenience, or expiration/completion of the contract term)

Due to the volume of reporting IRM TPOs, VPTS submissions are accepted by using an agreed upon spreadsheet for vendors assigned a grade of A or B. IRM TPOs with grades of C, D, or F must be submitted on a completed Form 0147.

Contracts valued at $5 million or Greater

Unless exempt, vendor performance must be submitted through Form 0147 to COS for contracts exceeding $5 million:

  • At least once each year during the term of the contract; and
  • At each key milestone identified for the contract.

HUB VPTS Reporting

The contract manager and the HUB Coordinator determine whether any HUB Subcontracting Plan (HSP) noncompliance should be submitted to the VPTS.
HUB compliance considerations are:

  • A single issue of HSP noncompliance that was addressed and remedied will not be reported.
  • If two or more issues were addresses, the HSP noncompliance is evaluated for reporting to VPTS.

See HUB Subcontracting Requirements, Changes, and Compliance: HSP NonCompliance Process and Vendor Performance reporting sections

Establishing Performance Grade

Best Value

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.

Required Performance Reports

As part of the vendor performance reporting process, contract staff must rate the vendor's performance by selecting a grade of A, B, C, D, or F.

Positive performance at contract closeout. For example:

  • Met best value criteria;
  • 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.

Critical and Unsatisfactory Performance (Grade of D and F)

Per the State of Texas Procurement and Contract Management Guide, contractors who do not fulfill contractual requirements, do not meet best value criteria, or who are on corrective action plans when the contract is terminated cannot be graded higher than C.

The Comptroller requires DFPS to identify potential factors for debarment when a vendor is graded F, including:

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

Vendor Protests

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 emailing the Comptroller. 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 posting. The vendor emails the Vendor Protest Form to the  Comptroller.

See: State of Texas Procurement and Contract Management Guide, Vendor Performance Reporting: Overview (page 108) and Scoring a Vendor (page 109)

Grading Criteria for Reporting Vendor Performance to VPTS

Grade to be Assigned

Criteria

A

Excellent

  • The vendor significantly exceeded the requirements of the purchase order or contract to the state’s benefit; and
  • Any problems with the purchase order or contract were minor; and
  • Corrective actions taken to address minor problems were highly effective.
  • If best value standard was used, the vendor satisfied the standard.

B

Good

  • The vendor exceeded some of the requirements of the purchase order or contract to the state’s benefit; and
  • Any problems with the purchase order or contract were minor; and
  • Corrective actions taken to address minor problems were effective.
  • If best value standard was used, the vendor satisfied the standard.

C

Satisfactory

  • The vendor met the requirements of the purchase order or contract; and
  • Any problems with the purchase order or contract were minor; and
  • Corrective actions taken to address minor problems were satisfactory.
  • If best value standard was used, the vendor satisfied the standard.

D

Unsatisfactory

  • The vendor did not meet some of the requirements of the purchase order or contract; and
  • Problems with the purchase order or contract were serious; and
  • Corrective actions taken to address serious problems were marginally effective or not fully implemented.
  • If best value standard was used, the vendor did not satisfy the standard.

F

Extremely Unsatisfactory

  • The vendor did not meet the requirements of the purchase order or contract; and
  • Problems with the purchase order or contract were serious; and
  • Corrective actions taken to address serious problems were ineffective.
  • If best value standard was used, the vendor did not satisfy the standard.

Source: Title 34: Texas Administrative Code, Section 20.509