The reason it is translated this way doesn't have anything to do with the lexical aspects. The reason it is translated this way in the versions has to do with the function the participle has in the sentence. While it would be more of a literal translation to translate it in the present tense, there is some case grammatically to translate it in the past tense. In either case you have to avoid giving it too much of a verbal idea since it is an adjective in this sentence.
The participle τοῦ παρόντος has in this case an article. That makes it necessary that the participle is functioning as either a noun or an adjective in the sentence. In this case the participle is a singular genitive neuter so the noun it modifies as an adjective would also have to be a singular genitive neuter. Since the participle follows right after the noun t shares case, number, and gender with it is a adjectival participle.
The noun it modifies is in verse 5 -- τοῦ εὐαγγελίου (the gospel). Earlier in the sentence the actual verb προηκούσατε (you heard beforehand) is in the aorist.
So here are the ideas: they had heard the gospel which had come and is still present. So they heard in the in the past but the gospel still remains so Paul used this construction using the participle to convey this idea. That is why nearly all of the translations give the phrase that almost looks like a past tense "which has come." I can't prove it, but I suspect Wycliffe was just more explicit in the past tense going back to προηκούσατε than the other translations. As for Young and Green, theirs are meant to be more literal, which in this case does not mean it is right. Their emphasis on the present tense is actually translating the participle as a verb, which it is not in this case, it has the article so it has to be an adjective or noun. Given its proximity to the other noun wit agrees with this identifies it as an adjective. Now you have to keep in mind that every participle does carry a verbal component even when it is an adjective so Green and Young are not terribly wrong here. It is just that the idea that they had heard the gospel which came (its still here) is I think better.
After seeing Robb's comments I went into this a little more. I looked in my "Exegetical Summaries" book by SIL, which summarizes translations issues and some exegetical question from all of the major English translations and commentaries. It makes the statement that τοῦ παρόντος has been translated as a perfect or in the past even though it is in the present tense.
I personally like the perfect here, the gospel reached them and its was still present in them.
The next phrases
καθὼς καὶ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ, -- just as it is in the whole world,
καὶ ἔστιν -- is relates back to the phrase in the whole world. So whatever is attached to "is" is happening in the whole world
What is happening καρποφορούμενον, καὶ αὐξανόμενον -- it is bearing fruit and increasing. The usage of the two participles are periphrastic, meaning that the two participles form a single verbal idea. I think Paul was emphasizing how powerful the gospel was in reaching the whole world. Everyone who responds to the genuine gospel is a testament to that power.
καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν -- just as it does in you also.
It is this last phrase that indicates that the gospel was bearing fruit and increasing in their midst too. Being a pastor myself, I know how sometimes I get caught up in an idea and want that to be the message. I think the main point is that Gospel has the power to reach the lost, even among those in the city of Collasse. Especially when Paul reminds them of how they had heard it in the past as the closing phrase of verse 6. I got saved as an adult so I can look back with wonder on those days I first heard the gospel and that has a powerful effect on my life today. I think that is what Paul is getting at here in the whole sentence going back to verse 5.
See Wallace on Participles. https://bible.org/article/participle
FYI -- I am a PhD candidate in Biblical Studies with a Greek New Testament concentration.