A GUIDE TO BEST PRACTICES FOR

PAST PERFORMANCE

OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY (OFPP)

INTERIM EDITION, MAY 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD....................................................... 3

 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION....................................... 5

Acquisition Reform Legislation............................ 6

Past Performance as a Method to Streamline

the Evaluation Process................................ 7

The Plan for Implementation............................... 7

Small Purchases........................................... 9

 

CHAPTER 2. BASIC CONSIDERATIONS.............................. 11

Past Performance as an Evaluation Factor 

Versus a Responsibility Criterion.................... 12

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

1 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
Past Performance as a Separate Non-Cost/Price Factor..... 12

General Indicia of Past Performance...................... 12

Eliciting Specific Information........................... 14

How to Weigh Past Performance............................ 16

 

CHAPTER 3. SOLICITATION LANGUAGE FOR USING PAST

PERFORMANCE...................................... 19

Section J................................................ 21

Client Authorization Letter.............................. 21

Section L................................................ 21

Section M................................................ 23

 

CHAPTER 4. OBTAINING INFORMATION ON A CONTRACTOR'S 

PAST PERFORMANCE................................. 27

Reference Checks......................................... 27

Customer Evaluations of Previously Performed Contracts... 31

Quality Certifications................................... 31

Discussions on Past Performance.......................... 33

 

CHAPTER 5. RATING PAST PERFORMANCE........................... 35

New Contractors.......................................... 36

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

2 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
 

CHAPTER 6. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORTS.................... 37

Completion of the Performance Evaluation................. 38

Ratings Areas............................................ 38

Performance Ratings...................................... 40

Contractor Response and Agency Review.................... 41

Release of Information................................... 42

APPENDIX 1. PAST PERFORMANCE PLEDGE AND AGENCY CONTACT POINTS

APPENDIX 2. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES

Bureau of Prisons

U.S. Army Information Systems Selection and Acquisition Agency

APPENDIX 3. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS

TOP OF PAGE

FOREWORD

(Table of Contents)

This is the second in a series of guidebooks on best practices

developed by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. This

guidebook contains best practices for implementing OFPP Policy

Letter No. 92-5, Past Performance Information, and the FAR

provisions on past performance contained in Parts 9, 15 and 42 as

promulgated by FAC 90-26. This guide discusses the use of

contractor's past performance, including quality certifications,

as a significant evaluation factor in the source selection

process and the development of a past performance evaluation

system within each agency to provide meaningful past performance

information for source selection. 

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

3 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
Including the use of past performance in the source selection

process is one aspect of the principle that Government

contracting officers should use all available information to

estimate the expected future performance of contractors. The use

of past performance as an evaluation factor in the contract award

process makes the awards "best value" selections. It enables

agencies to better predict the quality of, and customer

satisfaction with, future work. It also provides the contractors

with a powerful incentive to strive for excellence. Industry and

the government must move from an adversarial, litigious

relationship to a relationship based on partnership. Government

suppliers must deliver the same high quality of service to

government customers as they deliver to their best commercial

customers. The government will, in turn, reward those

contractors that deliver quality service by giving them credit

for their good performance when making selections for future

contracts. 

Let me directly address two criticisms about the use of past

performance heard from some contracting officers that will help

set the framework for this guide. 

1) Past performance and quality certifications are not

 perfect predictors. Of course nothing is a perfect

 predictor, but these variables are currently used informally

 by government contracting officers in source selections, and

 formally by most large private sector purchasers. Whenever

 relevant, contracting officers should use these sources of

 information to buy best expected value. 

2) Past performance and quality certifications do not always

 apply. No predictors are always useful, but they should be

 used in the majority of cases where they do apply. For

 example, on purchases made once a generation, past

 performance history does not provide the same level of

 predicability on future performance as it would on purchases

 made once a week.

This is an interim guidebook to assist agencies in developing

policies and procedures for implementation of this initiative for

contracts to be awarded beginning in Fiscal Year 1996. Many of

the practices contained herein were derived from the experiences

of contracting officers, program offices, and contractors on

solicitations where past performance concepts were tested under

the past performance pledge initiative begun on January 26, 1994. 

On that date, 20 Departments and agencies pledged to make past

performance a major selection criterion in the award of 60

contracts during 1994 and 1995. (See Appendix 1 for the test

program pledge and a list of the agency contact points.) This

guide contains the lessons learned from the first 14 contracts

awarded under the pledge program. Specific observations of

pledge participants are provided throughout this guide. At the

completion of the test program, a final guidebook will be issued

to capture any additional lessons learned. Additional comments

and suggestions are welcome. 

The techniques and practices used to implement the past

performance initiative that are discussed in this guide should

not be viewed as mandatory regulatory guidance and should not

form the basis for Inspector General or other audit reviews;

instead they should be viewed as techniques that OFPP has found

are useful in recording and using contractor past performance in

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

4 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
the contractor selection process. 

We wish to thank the procurement and program officials from the

major Executive Departments and agencies, and representatives

from the private sector, who offered information on their

experiences with the use of past performance as an evaluation

factor in source selection. We are particularly thankful for the

participation of those acquisition officials who were willing to

exercise innovative thinking to include past performance as a

significant evaluation factor in new acquisitions for the pledge

program. In addition, special thanks go to an interagency team

which developed the recommendations for the past performance

information report. 

Copies of this guidebook may be obtained from the Executive

Office of the President's Publications Office by calling 202-395-

7332 or writing Office of Publications, 725 17th Street, N.W.,

Room 2200, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. 

Comments and suggestions should be addressed to the attention of

David Muzio, New Executive Office Building, Room 9013 (FAX 202-

395-5105). 

 Steven Kelman

 Administrator

 Office of Federal Procurement Policy

CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION

(Table of Contents)

To select a high quality contractor, commercial firms rely on

information about a contractor's past performance as a major part

of the evaluation process. The government, on the other hand,

for large contracts attempts to select a quality contractor by

analyzing elaborate proposals describing how the work will be

done and the management systems that will be used to ensure good

performance. The current practice allows offerors that can write

outstanding proposals, but may not perform accordingly, to

continue to "win" contracts when other competing offerors have

significantly better performance records, and therefore, offer a

higher probability of meeting the contract requirements. Even on

simplified procurements, a common complaint is that the

government must accept low price offerors with marginal

performance records even when higher priced offerors are more

likely to be the "best value" because of their excellent record

of past performance.

Settling for inexpensive mediocrity hardly seems in the

taxpayers' best interest if an agency determines that it can get

better overall value by doing business with a higher priced

supplier with an excellent track record. So that the government

can routinely secure the high level of quality demanded of

contractors in the commercial world, the Office of Federal

Procurement Policy (OFPP) is encouraging agencies to make a

contractor's past performance an essential consideration in the

award of all procurements, except those accomplished through

sealed bidding. When the government demands high quality service

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

5 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
as a requirement for future business opportunities as does the

private sector, competition will intensify and result in higher

quality service by contractors. 

A Bureau of Prisons Contracting Officer participating in the

pledge program reported that knowledge of the use of past

performance as 25 percent of the source selection score on one

new contract acquisition spread quickly through the

contracting community for half-way house management. Service

quality has improved significantly on the other 25 contracts

that he administers as the contractors know that past

performance will be scored on all contract recompetitions.

ACQUISITION REFORM LEGISLATION

(Table of Contents)

In passing the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA),

signed into law by the President on October 13, 1994 (P.L. 103-

355), Congress acknowledged that it is both appropriate and

relevant for the government to consider a contractor's past

performance in evaluating whether that contractor should receive

future work. Section 1091 of FASA states: 

Past contract performance of an offeror is one of the

relevant factors that a contracting official of an executive

agency should consider in awarding a contract.

It is appropriate for a contracting official to consider

past contract performance of an offeror as an indicator of

the likelihood that the offeror will successfully perform a

contract to be awarded by that official.

FASA requires the Administrator of OFPP to "establish policies

and procedures that encourage the consideration of the offerors'

past performance in the selection of contractors." Specifically,

it requires the establishment of: 

Standards for evaluating past performance with respect to

cost (when appropriate), schedule, compliance with technical

or functional specifications, and other relevant performance

factors that facilitate consistent and fair evaluation by

all executive agencies. 

Policies for the collection and maintenance of information

on past contract performance that, to the maximum extent

practicable, facilitate automated collection, maintenance,

and dissemination of information and provide for ease of

collection, maintenance, and dissemination of information by

other methods, as necessary.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

6 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
Policies for ensuring that offerors are afforded an

opportunity to submit relevant information on past contract

performance, including performance under contracts entered

into by the executive agency concerned, by other agencies,

State and Local governments, and by commercial customers,

and that such information is considered.

The period for which past performance information may be

maintained.

In the case of an offeror with respect to which there is no

information on past contract performance or with respect to which

information on past contract performance is not available, FASA

states that the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or

unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. 

PAST PERFORMANCE AS A METHOD TO STREAMLINE THE EVALUATION

PROCESS

(Table of Contents)

It is not surprising that use of past performance as an

evaluation factor was identified by Congress as a method for

streamlining. Currently, the government routinely relies rather

heavily upon detailed technical and management proposals to

compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of offers. Much --

and, at times, all -- of this often voluminous risk assessment

information can be eliminated by evaluating how well the offerors

performed in the past on similar contracts. 

After awarding a major and complex contract for automated

technology development and assessment under the past

performance pledge program, the Immigration and Naturalization

Service is considering eliminating the standard technical

evaluation factors in a future procurement so as to use only

past performance and cost in the selection process. The test

was done using the traditional source selection factors in

addition to past performance. Although the process was

accelerated and took only five months from solicitation to

award, the selection team became convinced that evaluating

only past performance and cost may have been sufficient to

select the best contractor and could have reduced the process

from solicitation to award to 90 days. 

Certainly all contracts cannot be awarded using past performance

and cost as the only two evaluation factors. But virtually all

procurements can be made more efficient in terms of easier

proposal preparation and evaluation through the effective use of

past performance in the source selection process. The "best

practices" identified throughout this guide are designed to help

agencies capture these efficiencies while at the same time

securing better quality. 

THE PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

(Table of Contents)

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

7 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
The key to the long term success of this important initiative is

the establishment, in each agency, of a past performance

information system to systematically record on every contract

exceeding $100,000 contractor performance in the following areas:

Conformance to specifications and to standards of good

workmanship;

Containment and forecasting of costs;

Adherence to contract schedules, including the

administrative aspects of performance;

History of reasonable and cooperative behavior and overall

business-like concern for the interests of the customer; and

Service to the end user of the product or service.

The objective of Policy Letter 92-5 and FAR Subpart 42.15 is to

have a clear and concise evaluation of a contractor's past

performance on every contract that is readily available in the

file, or in a database, and can be shared with a requesting

source selection team with a minimum of delay. Where evaluations

of contractor performance for fee payments, or other purposes,

are prepared and could be made available for use by source

selection boards, separate past performance evaluation

documentation is not required. 

Evaluations should generally be prepared with input from the

technical office, contracting office and, except where not

appropriate, customers (i.e., end users of the product or

service). See FAR 42.1503(a). In accordance with the phase-in

schedule set forth at FAR 42.1502(a), they must by prepared at

the completion of contract performance. In addition, interim

evaluations should be prepared periodically (approximately every

six months or after a significant event on the contract, or a

change in program management) for contracts that will exceed one

year, including options. Pursuant to FAR 42.1503(b) the

evaluations must be shared with the contractor, and the

contractor must be permitted to provide written comments where

the contractor disagrees with the rating. Agencies must

establish a review function at least one level above the

contracting officer to consider the contractor's comments, if

requested, by the contractor. After consideration of the

contractor's comments, the final rating is a decision of the

contracting agency. Copies of the evaluation, the contractor's

response, and review comments, if any, should be marked as

"source selection information" and retained for use when

requested for Government source selections.

As the past performance evaluation process evolves and 

evaluations become common throughout the government,

solicitations will need only to ask offerors to provide a

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

8 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
list, in the proposal, of past contracts that they have performed

that were similar to the potential contract. The need for a

section in the proposal on the offeror's past performance may not

be necessary. The evaluation file from the government references

will provide much, if not all, of the information necessary to

evaluate the offeror on past performance. The need of source

selection boards to conduct extensive interviews with the

contract administration team, or conduct other investigations to

verify a offeror's past performance, should be greatly reduced. 

Because the contractor will have been offered the opportunity to

comment on the ratings as they were prepared, further comment in

the proposal or during discussions, if held, will usually not be

necessary. 

The schedule established for agencies to fully implement this

initiative (FAR 15.605(b)(1)(ii) and 42.1502(a)) requires that

past performance be used as a source selection factor, unless

waived by the contracting officer, in all solicitations exceeding

$1 million a year not later than July 1, 1995, all solicitations

exceeding $500,000 a year not later than July 1, 1997, and all

solicitations exceeding $100,000 not later than January 1, 1999. 

Establishment of agency past performance reporting systems must

begin by July 1, 1995 for contracts in excess of $1 million a

year, for contracts in excess of $500,000 effective July 1, 1996,

and for contracts in excess of $100,000 effective January 1,

1998.

SMALL PRUCHASES

(Table of Contents)

The primary focus of this guide is on purchases above the

simplified acquisition threshold (SAT). However, it should be

noted that it is clearly acceptable, as provided in the FAR, to

consider past performance in purchases under SAT, including

purchases conducted through the Federal Acquisition Computer

Network (FACNET). Contracting officers may use whatever

information is available to the buying office about an offeror's

past performance when making an award decision. If the agency

establishes an automated, or other, past performance reporting

system for recording past performance information across the

agency, data should be retained as determined by the agency, but

not more than three years. Formal evaluation plans, conduct of

discussions and scoring of quotes or offers is not required. 

Simplified documentation procedures may be used to support the

final action taken. For instance, a note in the file stating

instances of late deliveries or poor quality on prior awards

would suffice. Upon request, the contracting officer should

explain the reason for selection of the higher priced offeror.

The best practice is for the procuring activity to establish a

simple, but consistent, system for applying past performance in

those small dollar award decisions that rewards contractors that

provide quality products and services in a timely manner.

CHAPTER 2.

BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

(Table of Contents)

Consideration of a contractor's track record has always been part

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

9 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
of the government's buying decision. FAR 9.104-1(c) states that

a prospective contractor must have a satisfactory performance

record in order to do business with the government. Clearly,

such an examination is important, as it helps ensure that

taxpayer dollars are not wasted on contracts with nonresponsible

contractors. But, past performance can, and should, be used to

do more than just help the government to decide whether a

contractor is capable of performing. If the government is to get

the type of high quality demanded of contractors in the

commercial world, it must compare the past track records of its

competing offerors to help identify which one, relatively

speaking, is offering the best value. 

Put another way, past performance should be used in both

contexts. A contractor with a record of unsatisfactory past

performance should be screened out of the selection process as

part of the responsibility determination. If a contractor's past

performance record passes the responsibility determination, then

the record should be compared to the other responsible offerors

to determine the offeror that provides the best value to the

government.

A contracting officer at Bonneville Power Administration

reporting on the results of a pledged contract stated: other

contractors were found capable of performing this job and

would have been selected had this purchase been set up for

award to the low, responsible bidder. Using past performance

permitted a relative ranking and enabled Bonneville Power

Administration to get the most value for its dollar - not just

the lowest price." 

FAR 15.605(b)(1) establishes past performance as one of the two

mandatory evaluation factors, along with price or cost, for all

competitively negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed

$100,000, unless the contracting officer documents in the

contract file the reasons why past performance should not be

evaluated. The relative importance of past performance compared

to price or cost and any other evaluation factors is left to the

broad discretion of agency acquisition official, as is the source

and type of past performance information to be included in the

evaluation.

While FAR 15.604(b) assigns formal responsibility for the past

performance requirements related to the source selection process

to the cognizant technical official, this, like all other aspects

of preparing the solicitation, is best seen as a joint

responsibility of all the source selection team members. This

will result in an integrated -- and better -- assessment of what

qualities a "good" contractor should exhibit, and enable a more

effective selection process. 

What follows is a discussion of some of the key considerations

that should be taken into account to make the most effective use

of past performance as an evaluation factor. 

PAST PERFORMANCE AS AN EVALUATION FACTOR VERSUS A RESPONSIBILITY

CRITERION

(Table of Contents)

To make clear from the outset that past performance is being used

as an evaluation factor, it should be included in the

solicitation as a factor against which offerors' relative

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

10 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
rankings will be compared. Agencies should avoid characterizing

it as a minimum mandatory requirement in the solicitation. When

used in this fashion -- to make a "go/no go" decision as opposed

to making comparisons among competing firms -- it will be

considered part of the responsibility determination. As such, it

will be subject to review by the Small Business Administration

under the Certificate of Competency process.

PAST PERFORMANCE AS A SEPARATE NON-COST/PRICE FACTOR

(Table of Contents)

It is best to consider past performance as a stand alone factor,

as opposed to integrating it with other non-cost/price factors. 

Making it distinct and identifiable will reduce the chances of

its impact being lost within other factors and may make

evaluation easier. 

An Army Material Command program officer stated: Including

past performance in each of the non-cost/price factors

reduced it effectiveness in that the averaging within the

broader categories obviated the distinctions.

GENERAL INDICIA OF PAST PERFORMANCE

(Table of Contents)

When used in the evaluation process, past performance, like any

other factor, must be used to elicit information that will enable

the government to decide how good one offeror's promises are in

comparison to all others. To most effectively predict how an

offeror is likely to perform in the future, the source selection

team should take into account, in evaluating past performance, 

the following general considerations, as appropriate:

Quality of product or service;

Timeliness of performance;

Cost control;

Business practices;

Customer (end user) satisfaction; and

Key personnel past performance.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

11 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
The quality of products and services can be looked at in terms of

how well the contractor has complied with contract requirements

and whether it conformed to standards of good workmanship. 

Timeliness can be measured in terms of how well the contractor

has adhered to contract schedules and its responsiveness to

technical direction. Cost control can be evaluated by, among

other things, examining to see if the contractor operated at or

below budget, submitted reasonably priced change proposals and

provided current, accurate, and complete billings.

Business practices and customer satisfaction should be evaluated

to measure the contractor's customer relations efforts. Business

practices evaluates how well the contractor worked with the

contracting officer and technical representative(s). Customer

satisfaction measures the interface with the ultimate end user of

the product or service, e.g., the PC user who needs assistance

under a computer services contract, or the person who uses a

supply item to complete their work. A contract cannot be

considered a success unless the end user is satisfied. After

all, support of the end user is the reason for every contract. 

Accordingly, effort should be made to ascertain whether each

customer was satisfied, for satisfaction by one does not

necessarily mean satisfaction by all. 

The U.S. Mint found that some of the program office past

performance observations about poor performance by the

incumbent turned out to be overstated when the user locations

were asked to comment on the vendors performance.

Key personnel past performance looks at the track record of the

principal individuals selected to manage and perform other key

aspects of the work on the contract. When firms in the

commercial world make decisions about which contractor,consultant,

or firm to deal with, they place heavy emphasis on

(1) the past performance of the company as a whole and (2) how

well the firm's employees have performed. Often, a company will

choose to work with the same contractor based solely on the past

performance of its employees.

Similarly, the past performance of the key management personnel

to be assigned to a government contract should be looked at as an

indicator of how well the contract will be performed. For new

companies entering the marketplace, without relevant company

experience, it will be the quality of the past performance of

their key management personnel that will indicate the risk of

good performance and become the basis of the past performance

evaluation.

ELICITING SPECIFIC INFORMATION

(Table of Contents)

When deciding what specific information to seek, the issue of

relevancy should play a key role. It is inefficient to consider

data just because it is available. It is necessary to look at

the contract requirements and ask if the data is meaningful: 

Will it demonstrate that the offeror will be successful in

performing the new contract? For instance, there would be no

point to considering poor subcontract management if there were no

subcontract management needed on the contract. On the other

hand, if there were a significant amount of software development

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

12 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
it would certainly be important to know the offeror's record with

regard to estimating lines of code, providing software builds on

time with few errors and accomplishing the effort within the

estimated cost.

If subcontractors are likely to perform critical aspects of the

contract, the government should evaluate the past performance of

these subcontractors to determine the overall risk of the prime

contractor performing the contract. 

Attention should be paid to what discriminates a "good" performer

from a "poor" performer, for the type of work that will be

performed on the instant acquisition. Subfactors of past

performance should be shaped by those discriminators and be

limited in number. This will expedite the evaluation process. 

Past performance subfactors should be tailored to the key

performance criteria in the statement of work (SOW) and surveys

should be crafted to ask about performance in the subfactor

areas. 

Statements of work (SOW) should be performance-based to the

maximum extent possible. Defining "what" the government wants,

rather than "how" the government wants the work done or beingvague 

and non-specific in defining requirements, takes much of

the subjectivity out of government contracts. If the SOW is

performance-based, the past performance subfactors and questions

to ask references can specifically address the contractors

capability of meeting the performance standards. For example, if

one of the performance standards on a computer service contract

is that the contractor must respond within 30 minutes to the work

site when a problem is reported, the past performance evaluation

can objectively address how well the contractor met this standard

on past contracts.

If the contract is for a new state-of-the-art system some of the

subfactors could be: ability to solve multiple problems and stay

on schedule, use of commercial-off-the-shelf items to the maximum

extent possible to reduce life cycle costs, and quality of

subcontract management.

A survey of contractors done by the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) revealed the following suggestions for

subfactors: 

An administrator for a non-profit educational institution

felt that one could look at promptness of reports, accuracy

on technical requirements, progress and meeting objectives,

and financial reports.

The president of a security services company felt that

turnover rate, overtime rate and invoicing should be

evaluated.

A special studies contractor stated that depth of knowledge

and ability to adapt were important.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

13 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
A large construction contractor said that safety record,

number of defects and claims filed could be rated.

A large information technology contractor felt that a record

of consistent innovative ideas should be noted along with

record of ethics, understanding customer problems and

ability to adapt to changes in technology. Finally, he

thought that financial statements, business plans and market

surveys could be used in an evaluation.

The subfactors used for past performance should be those actions

of a contractor that can be reasonably asked of a reference. The

subfactors in the solicitation will be the basic questions on a

questionnaire to use for interviewing references or reviewing any

written evaluations provided by the references. For example,

subfactors with corresponding questions under business relations

could include:

Management Responsiveness - Is the offeror cooperative,

business-like and concerned with the interests of the

customer?

Contract change proposals - What is the contractor's history

on contract change proposals? This includes, changes that

lower the overall cost or improve performance - timely and

accurate proposals for equitable adjustments - changes that

have been withdrawn or dismissed as invalid.

Substitution of Key personnel - What is the contractor's

history on changing the key personnel proposed in the offer?

 

Emergency Responsiveness - Has the offeror responded in a

credible manner to emergency service requirements? 

Overall Satisfaction - Would you do business with this

contractor again, if you had a choice ?

For large organizations with many divisions and profit centers,

it is realistic to consider the past performance of the

affiliate, division, etc. that will perform the actual work. In

making such decisions, however, an agency must consider the

degree of control that a parent organization will exert over the

affiliate. If a parent organization has an excellent or poor

performance record and the affiliate is going to be closely

controlled and managed by the parent, then the agency should

consider the parent organization's performance record in making

the performance evaluation.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

14 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
HOW TO WEIGH PAST PERFORMANCE

(Table of Contents)

Past performance should be ranked to ensure that it is

meaningfully considered. To be meaningful in the source

selection process and to ensure that contractors are aware that

actual contract performance will be a significant factor in

future awards, it is recommended that past performance normally

be at least equal in significance to any other non-cost

evaluation factor. If relative order of importance is the

evaluation system used, then past performance should be

considered at least equally important to any other non-cost

factor. Generally, if a numeric weighting system is used, past

performance should be rated at 25 percent or more. 

For example, if there are five non-cost evaluation factors

including past performance then any of the following examples of

weightings or relative importance would suffice:

Past performance at 25 percent with the other four factors

rated at 18.75 percent each (75/4=18.75);

Past performance at 25 percent, technical excellence at 25

percent, management at 20 percent, the other two factors at

15 percent each;

All five factors rated at 20 percent.

Technical approach rated at 30 percent, past performance

rated at 30 percent (to equal the highest rated other noncost factor), management at 20 percent and the other two

factors rated at 10 percent each.

Technical capability and past performance are considered

equal in importance followed by test and evaluation,

logistics management, and subcontract management in

descending order of importance.

 The Department of Labor IG rated past performance at 40-50

 percent on test contracts.

 The Bureau of Prisons, after completing a test contract,

 intends for some future contracts to rate past performance as

 50 percent of the total score with technical at 25 percent and

 cost at 25 percent.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

15 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
 The Air Force intends to make past performance equal to the

 color code which indicates relative scores in price, technical

 and management.

Within the past performance factor, the source selection team

must determine whether it wants to rate past performance on an

overall basis, or whether certain of the subfactors are more

important than others. For example, on a contract where most of

the work is done for end users and it is difficult for the

contract administration team to observe the contractor's

performance in a cost effective manner, significant weight might

be placed on the offeror's customer (end user) satisfaction

ratings from the references.

Making past performance among the most significant factor or the

only non-cost factor, is feasible when the contract that is being

solicited is very close in requirements to contracts that have

been performed in the past by many contractors. The source

selection team will need to make the judgement on how close a

predictor of success past contract performance will be for the

current contract.

Where past performance is made the most significant or the sole

non-cost evaluation factor, significant efficiencies can be made

in the proposal preparation and proposal evaluation processes. 

Proposal input would not need to be sought on the areas to be

evaluated through past performance. This saves the contractor

preparation resources and the government evaluation resources.

CHAPTER 3.

SOLICITATION LANGUAGE FOR USING PAST

PERFORMANCE

(Table of Contents)

Key to the successful use of past performance -- and any factor 

-- in the source selection process is the establishment of a

clear relationship between the statement of work (SOW), Section L

(instructions to offerors) and Section M (evaluation criteria).

The factors chosen for evaluation must track back to the

requirements in the SOW. They should be reasonable, logical, and

coherent.

Accordingly, Section L and Section M should be clear with respect

to what past performance information the government will evaluate

and how it will be weighted - at least in relative terms. Past

performance information that is not important to the current

acquisition should not be included. 

Section L must state that the offerors may identify Federal,

state and local government and private contracts that are similar

to the statement of work in the solicitation. This will help

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

16 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
ensure that firms new to the federal process are given a fair

opportunity to compete. If for some reason the work for other

than the federal government is to be rated lower than federal

contracts this needs to be specified in Section M. 

FAR 42.1503(e) states that past performance information shall not

be retained to provide source selection information for longer

than three years after completion of the contract. Thus, the

solicitation should ask the contractor for references for ongoing or contracts completed within the last three years. For

small dollar contracts where there are lots of actions and many

contractors provide the products or services, a shorter period

may by appropriate.

Once the time frame has been determined, contractors should not

be allowed to "cherry pick," to provide selective information on

their past performance history. All contracts performed during

the identified period, or the last "X" contracts performed by the

entity within the identified period should be sought. The

government can determine which contracts are relevant to the

solicitation. The goal is to get a true picture of the

contractor's overall, recent performance record.

It is recommended that Section L ask only for a list of the

previous contracts and contact points and for a description of

any quality awards earned by the offeror. It is not necessary to

burden the process by asking that the offeror prepare a

description of its past performance history in the proposal. 

However, some contracting officers have felt it beneficial to ask

the offerors to discuss any major problems encountered on the

contracts listed and the corrective actions taken to resolve

them. 

It is important to ask for at least two references on each

contract. In addition to ensuring that all aspects of the

contractor's performance will be discussed, it also ensures that

anonymity of the references can be maintained. There is

considerable concern that there will be a tendency for inflated

rating from references if the name of the person providing the

rating is revealed to the offeror. FAR 15.610(c)(6) and

15.1003(b)(4) prohibit release of the names of individuals

providing reference information about an offeror's past

performance

Section L should include a statement that the government may use

past performance information obtained from other than the sources

identified by the offeror and that the information obtained will

be used for both the responsibility determination and the best

value decision. 

It is further recommended that the solicitation contain a copy of

the past performance questionnaire (survey) form that will be

used to record the information received from the references. 

This allows offerors to know what is important to the government

on this contract and helps offerors in their proposal decisions. 

The questionnaire should be listed as an attachment in Section J

and Section L should note that it will be used to collect past

performance information. 

Section M should stipulate the percentage score, or relative

importance, that past performance will receive. This should be a

significant portion of the evaluation. As discussed in Chapter

2, it is recommended that past performance receive at least 25

percent of the non-cost score or be equal to or more important

than any other non-cost factor. Major areas on the questionnaire

should be listed as evaluation subfactors, as appropriate, and

the percentage or relative importance each will receive in the

evaluation should be specified. 

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

17 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
It is also important to indicate how offerors with "no" past

performance will be evaluated. Refer to Chapter 5 for further

discussion on the treatment of new contractors.

Sample Solicitation Provisions

Shown below are examples of solicitation provisions for Sections

J, L and M for the past performance portion of the total

solicitation instructions. They were developed from a review of

solicitations sent to OFPP by agencies participating in the past

performance pledge program. They should not be viewed as the

only way to include past performance in the solicitation. Each

solicitation must contain instructions and evaluation information

that best reflects the individual acquisition. 

SECTION J. List of Attachments.

(Table of Contents)

Offerors should send their listed private sector references a

letter to the following effect authorizing the reference to

provide past performance information to the government. 

CLIENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER (optional)

(Table of Contents)

Dear "Client":

We are currently responding to the Department of____ RFP ____

for the procurement of ____________.

They are placing increased emphasis in their procurements on past

performance as a source selection factor. They are requiring

that clients of entities responding to their solicitations be

identified and their participation in the evaluation process be

requested. In the event you are contacted for information on

work we have performed, you are hereby authorized to respond to

those inquiries.

We have identified Mr./Ms.______ of your organization as the

point of contact based on their knowledge concerning our work.

Your cooperation is appreciated. Any questions may be directed

to:________.

 Sincerely, 

SECTION L. Instructions.

(Table of Contents)

Past Performance Information

Offerors shall submit the following information as part of their

proposal for both the offeror and proposed major subcontractors: 

(The information may be submitted prior to the other parts of the

proposal, to assist the government in reducing the evaluation

period).A. A list of the last ____ contracts and subcontracts completed

during the past three years and all contracts and subcontracts

currently in process. Contracts listed may include those entered

into by the Federal Government, agencies of state and local

governments and commercial customers. Offerors that are newly

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

18 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
formed entities without prior contracts should list contracts and

subcontracts as required above for all key personnel. Include

the following information for each contract and subcontract:

1. Name of contracting activity

2. Contract number

3. Contract type

4. Total contract value

5. Contract work

6. Contracting officer and telephone

7. Program manager and telephone

8. Administrative contracting officer, if different from # 6, and telephone

9. List of major subcontractors

B. The offeror may provide information on problems encountered

on the contracts and subcontracts identified in A above and 

corrective actions taken to resolve those problems. Offerors

should not provide general information on their performance on

the identified contracts. General performance information will

be obtained from the references. (Use this paragraph if written

input from the offeror is desired in addition to the information

obtained from the references. 

C. The offeror may describe any quality awards or

certifications that indicate the offeror possesses a high-quality

process for developing and producing the product or service

required. Such awards or certifications include, for example,

the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award, other government quality

awards, and private sector awards or certifications (e.g., the

automobile industry's QS 9000, Sematech's SSQA, or ANSI/EIA-599).

 Identify what segment of the company (one division or the

entire company) that received the award or certification. 

Describe when the award or certification was bestowed. If the

award or certification is over three years old, present evidence

that the qualifications still apply. 

D. Each offeror will be evaluated on his/her performance under

existing and prior contracts for similar products or services.

Performance information will be used for both responsibility

determinations and as an evaluation factor against which

offerors' relative rankings will be compared to assure best value

to the government. The government will focus on information that

demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and

complexity of the procurement under consideration. The

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

19 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
Performance Information Form identified in Section J will be used

to collect this information. References other than those

identified by the offeror may be contacted by the Government with

the information received used in the evaluation of the offeror's

past performance. 

The FBI requested that offerors provide past performance data

in a separate book. This made it very easy to find the

information requested as well as sending a signal to the

offerors of the importance of past performance data.

SECTION M. Evaluation Factors for Award.

(Table of Contents)

Past Performance

(NOTE: There are various ways to establish an evaluation system. 

Using a numeric system as described below is just one. This

example should not be interpreted as a suggestion that agencies

should or must assign numeric weights to past performance or any

other evaluation factor or subfactor).

Past performance will be evaluated as follows:

1. Past performance will receive 35 percent of the noncost/price factors ratings. Subfactors A, B, C, D and E are of

equal importance and will receive up to 25 percent of the noncost/price ratings with the other 10 percent allocated to

subfactor G, quality awards. The criteria for a rating of

excellent is described with each subfactor. 

 

A. Quality of Product or Service - compliance with

 contract requirements - accuracy of reports - technical

 excellence. Excellent = There were no quality

 problems.

B. Timeliness of Performance - met interim milestones -

 reliable - responsive to technical direction -

 completed on time, including wrap-up and contract

 administration - no liquidated damages assessed. 

 Excellent = There were no unexcused delays.

C. Cost Control - within budget - current accurate and

 complete billings - relationship of negotiated costs to

 actuals - cost efficiencies. Excellent = There were no

 cost issues.

D. Business Relations - effective management - effective

 small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting

 program - reasonable/cooperative behavior - flexible -

 effective contractor recommended solutions - business-

 like concern for government's interests. Excellent =

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

20 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
 Response to inquiries, technical/service/administrative

 issues was effective and responsive.

E. Customer Satisfaction - satisfaction of end users with

 the contractors service. Excellent = 90 percent or

 more of end users surveyed rated the service as

 excellent or better.

F. Where the offeror has demonstrated an exceptional

 performance level in any of the above five subfactors 

 additional consideration can be given by the

 contracting officer for that factor. It is expected

 that this rating will be used in those rare

 circumstances when contractor performance clearly

 exceed the performance levels described as "excellent."

 

G. Receipt of widely recognized quality awards or

 certifications. Excellent = Malcolm Baldridge Quality

 award, or equivalent award, covering the entity

 submitting the offer. 

2. Assessment of the offeror's past performance will be one

means of evaluating the credibility of the offeror's proposal,

and relative capability to meet performance requirements.

3. Information utilized will be obtained from the references

listed in the proposal, other customers known to the Government,

consumer protection organizations, and others who may have useful

and relevant information. Information will also be considered

regarding any significant subcontractors, and key personnel

records.

4. Evaluation of past performance will often be quite

subjective based on consideration of all relevant facts and

circumstances. It will include a determination of the offerors

commitment to customer satisfaction and will include conclusions

of informed judgement. However, the basis for conclusions of

judgement will be documented. 

5. Award may be made from the initial offers without

discussions. However, if discussions are held offerors will be

given an opportunity to address unfavorable reports of past

performance, if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to

review the rating. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure

that corrective measures have been implemented. Prompt

corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall

negative trends.

6. If an offeror, or the proposed employees for the offeror, do

not have a past performance history relating to this

solicitation, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or

unfavorably on this factor.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

21 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
CHAPTER 4.

OBTAINING INFORMATION ON A CONTRACTOR'S

PAST PERFORMANCE

(Table of Contents)

Information about a contractor's past performance may come from a

variety of customers, including federal agencies, state and local

governments, and commercial contractors. The most prevalent way

to obtain information from past and present customers is to

conduct reference checks. Although not yet available on a

government-wide basis, customer assessment of a contractor's

performance can also be obtained from evaluations completed on

previous government contracts. Quality certifications and awards

can also serve as a useful source of past performance

information. This chapter discusses the various methods for

obtaining information on a contractor's track record. 

REFERENCE CHECKS

(Table of Contents)

The process of conducting reference checks should begin as soon

as the proposal evaluation commences to prevent delays in the

selection process. The collection of information can be time

consuming inasmuch as researchers must locate and question

sources of information, either in person, by telephone or in

writing. Obtaining this information as early as possible in the

evaluation process gives the contracting officer invaluable

information in determining the viability of the individual

offerors. In addition, if the information shows a history of

poor performance the contracting officer has the opportunity to

recommend that certain offerors be eliminated from the

competition as nonresponsible. 

One of the pledged contract teams from the Department of

Transportation noted that conducting the reference checks for

the past performance evaluation was an eye opener and assisted

the team tremendously in a very tight evaluation. It allowed

the team to identify very early in the process that the effort

was well beyond the capabilities of one of the proposers. It

further made it very clear that the remaining proposers were

very equal in their abilities.

For large complex contracts, it may be best for an agency to

establish a team devoted entirely to this task during the source

selection, especially if the agency anticipates receiving a large

number of proposals.

The first step in obtaining information from sources is to

develop a questionnaire, or survey form, which reflects the

evaluation rating system that will be used to assess the offerors

strengths and weaknesses for the contract being considered.

 

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

22 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
DOT advises agencies to pay particular attention to

questionnaires. "You want to be fair yet thorough. Cover all

areas that are to be part of your effort, meeting schedules,

performance standards, administrative items, contract

management, workmanship and last but not least the contractors

history for reasonableness and cooperation, customer

satisfaction, and a business-like concern for meeting its

commitments."

Questions should be worded so that interviewees understand

precisely what they are being asked to describe. All team

members should state the questions to the interviewees exactly as

on the questionnaire. In order to maintain accurate records and

facilitate verification, the questionnaire (survey) record form

should include the reference's name, full mailing address and

telephone number, the date and time of the call and the

description of the contract effort discussed. Examples of

questionnaires used by various agencies are contained at Appendix 2.

Once the questionnaire is prepared references should be

contacted. There are various ways to collect the information:

Face-to-face interviews;

Mail the questionnaires to the references and wait for the

responses;

Telephone interviews using the questionnaire; and

Some combination of the above.

Telephone interviews are probably the most practical and cost

effective way to collect past performance information. They save

time and effort for both parties. Face-to-face interviews are

only practicable if the reference is in close proximity to the

interviewee. Telephone inquiries have a higher response rate

than mailed questionnaires which are not always filled out and

returned in a timely manner and a follow-on telephone interview

will probably be necessary anyway. 

The Army Materiel Command states in its guide, Past

Performance in Source Selection, that "Field experience

indicates questionnaires provide useful but incomplete

information. A helpful approach is to start by sending a

common questionnaire to each reference and to conclude by

calling those who respond with the most promising information. 

Experience indicates that whether you send questionnaires or

not, you will most likely conclude by calling the reference to

obtain more detail or clarification.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

23 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
At least two references should be contacted on each previous

contract effort. As pointed out in Chapter 3, this should be

specified in Section L. Additional references will often be

identified during the interviews. Maximum effectiveness occurs

when the expertise of the interviewer matches that of the

reference. When more than one individual provides a reference on

a particular contract the resulting information is likely to be

more candid since anonymity is ensured. While the results of the

interview may be released to the offeror, FAR 15.610 and 15.1003

prohibit the release of the names of persons providing reference

information. 

It is also important to survey reasonably large numbers of

references in order to look for patterns in their description of

performance - individual ratings may be idiosyncratic and biased. 

Numerous rating can show patterns and are therefore much more

likely to be a valid indicator. 

The FBI observed that: in order to obtain complete data from a

reference provided by the vendor it is necessary to interview

both the contracting officer and the project manager of the

contract. During the interview process we found that project

mangers were reluctant to provide information for fear of

violating procurement regulations. Contracting officers who

were interviewed could not recall the amount of details

regarding vendor performance that Project Managers were aware

of."

Being well organized and efficient is important when conducting

the interview so as not to waste the interviewee's time. It is

helpful to call the reference to make an appointment to conduct

an interview, rather than telephoning the references unannounced,

thereby catching them unprepared or with little time to respond. 

If possible, the questionnaire should be mailed or faxed to the

reference in advance of the appointment. 

It is probably preferable to interview one-on-one, with the

contracting officer and program personnel if feasible. 

References are not likely to be as frank in group interviews as

when alone. Of course, in a one-on-one extreme views may be

expressed that do not reflect the overall evaluation in terms of

the contractor's performance.

Interviewers should take copious notes on the questionnaire to

ensure that all information is captured. Tape recording the

conversation may cause the reference discomfort and reduce the

amount of information provided.

Evaluators should look for patterns of either favorable or

unfavorable overall performance, rather than focusing on

individual successes or failures. It is important to look for

actions that demonstrate high performance and not just

unfavorable performance. This will help to get away from the old

responsibility determination mode of just looking at performance

problems. 

There appears to be a tendency for references to give an upward

bias to ratings. Therefore, the interviewer should ask enough

questions to discriminate between "good" and "excellent." Even

with this natural upward bias, evaluators should not hesitate,

where it is desirable, to rate at excellent plus - i.e., exceeds

contract requirements or extraordinary commitment to customer

satisfaction. These are the contractors the government wants to

do business with.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

24 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
Evaluators should request any existing documentation in support

of excellent or negative findings (i.e., correspondence,

modifications, determinations, etc). Investigating negative

findings in-depth prior to presenting them to offerors, in

discussions if held, will alleviate unnecessary delays.

Prior to concluding the interview, the evaluator should ask the

interviewee for a summary opinion e.g., how would the interviewee

rate the contractor's overall performance and would the

interviewee like to do business with the contractor again? 

Immediately following a telephone interview, the interviewer

should prepare a narrative summary of the conversation and send

it to the reference for verification, preferably by certified

mail return receipt requested or fax. (This can be the

questionnaire as filled in by the interviewer). The narrative

should state explicitly that if the reference does not object to

its content within the time specified, it will be accepted ascorrect. 

If the reference indicates that the narrative is

incorrect, then a corrected narrative should be sent for

verification. If a reference will not agree to the record and

satisfactory corrections cannot be agreed upon, the record cannot

be relied upon and should not be included in the offeror's

rating. Another source may provide the same information,

however.

A contracting officer for the FBI stated that the past

performance interviews gave them more insight in going into

negotiations-The interviews can expose problems with the

contractor that can be discussed during the negotiation. 

CUSTOMER EVALUATIONS OF PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED CONTRACTS

(Table of Contents)

FAR 42.1502 requires agencies to prepare an evaluation of

contractor performance pursuant to a phase-in schedule. Once

these evaluations become commonly available, OFPP believes that

use of these performance evaluations can provide an efficient and

reliable source of past performance information. Use of the

evaluations can eliminate much of the work presently undertaken

to conduct reference checks. The source selection team should

ask for the evaluations and contractor responses, if any, to be

faxed or mailed to the team. Since contractors will already have

had a chance to rebut evaluations and obtain review at a level

above the contracting officers, and such information will be

included in the file, the source selection team would rarely

need to solicit additional information from the references. This

should help to streamline the source selection process for both

the government and offerors. 

QUALITY CERTIFICATIONS

(Table of Contents)

The private sector is increasingly establishing partnerships with

suppliers and customers to insure continuous improvement in the

quality of the end products and services. Many world class

organizations are creating supplier relations that add value. 

Toyota requires all of its suppliers (and their suppliers) to

apply for the Deming Quality Award. Ford and the other US auto

companies have followed suit -- Ford's Q1 certification is widely

recognized as signifying a high-quality supplier. Other private

sector certifications that are widely admired include those of

Xerox and Honda of America Manufacturing. Many companies that

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

25 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
are winners of the Baldridge award for their quality programs,

require their suppliers to apply for the Baldridge award.

Using a Preferred Supplier Certification process, McDonnell

Douglas identifies suppliers that have demonstrated a

commitment to customer satisfaction by providing high quality,

technically excellent and affordable products on time. 

Company officials expect to see lower costs from reduced rework, lower inspection costs, reduced inventory costs and

reduced lead and cycle times.

The Baldrige Award (named for former Commerce Secretary Malcolm

Baldrige) measures companies' progress on a number of quality

goals. The company or division must provide evidence that they

incorporate quality into management practices; work closely with

suppliers; train workers in quality techniques and meet

customers' desires. 

The President's Quality Award as well as agency-specific awards

(e.g., within the Air Force) are modeled closely on the Baldrige

award. Several Federal agencies have Blue Ribbon Programs built

on the premise that past on-time and high-quality performance

predicts future performance. 

The International Standards Organization has proposed a series of

quality standards (ISO 9000 series) that are being widely

adopted, particularly by nations of the European Community. U.S.

industry associations are beginning to use the ISO 9000 series as

a baseline for developing US certification programs. Because the

ISO standard does not require that organizations be constantly

improving their process, it makes an incomplete basis for judging

the quality of an organization's process.

In seeking past performance information, procurement officials

are encouraged to ask offerors about any quality certifications

or awards. How quality certifications are evaluated is at the

discretion of the contracting officer. A sample evaluation plan

for evaluating this subfactor is provided below. Note: This is

for illustrative purposes only and is not intended to indicate a

preferred rating system:

Excellent (10 percent of total rating or 40 percent of past

performance rating): Receipt of a world-class quality award

or certification (e.g., Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award)

covering the entire organization proposing on the project. 

The award or certification has been received or renewed

within the last three years, or the proposal presents

convincing evidence that it still applies. Good (6 percent

of total rating or 24 percent of past performance rating: 

Receipt of a widely respected quality award or certification 

(e.g., the automobile industry's QS 9000, Sematech's SSQA,

or ANSI/EIA-559).

Adequate (2 percent of total rating or 8 percent of

past performance rating): Receipt of a quality award

or certification with a weak relation to future quality

(e.g., ISO 9000 registration). 

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

26 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
DISCUSSIONS ON PAST PERFORMANCE

(Table of Contents)

Whenever feasible, awards should be made on initial offers,

without discussions. This is particularly relevant when the

product or service lends itself to an evaluation based only on

past performance and cost. Agencies should include the

appropriate provisions in the solicitation notifying the offerors

of the possibility of award without discussion. However, if

discussions are needed under the conditions specified in FAR

15.610(b), the offeror must be provided an opportunity to discuss

past performance information obtained from references on which

the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to comment. Once

past performance reports become commonly available within the

federal government, discussions, if any, will need only to cover

state and local government and private sector references. 

CHAPTER 5.

RATING PAST PERFORMANCE

(Table of Contents)

Once past performance information is gathered, the entire past

performance team needs to assess all offerors and assign

performance risk ratings. Instances of good or poor performance

should be noted and related to the solicitation requirements. If

problems were identified on a prior contract, the role the

government may have played in that result should be taken into

account. Performance risk assessments should consider the number

and severity of problems, the demonstrated effectiveness of

corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the

overall work record. The Team should look for indications of

excellent or exceptional performance in the areas most critical

to the performance standards in the SOW."

In some procurements, it may be that past performance will be

rated on an overall basis where all subfactors under the past

performance factor count the same and a simple final rating can

be made. In other procurements, some subfactors may be given

more weight than others, emphasizing those subfactors that relate

most directly to the performance standards in the SOW. The age

of the performance being evaluated may be weighed such that

performance on older contracts receives less weight than

performance on more recent contracts. More weight may be given

to those evaluations on prior agency or federal contracts as

opposed to contracts with states/local governments or private

parties or to prior contracts of a similar nature to the

solicitation as opposed to past performance on contracts which

are less similar.

The final past performance rating may be reflected in a color, a

number, or some other means, depending upon what system is being

used overall to indicate the relative ranking of the offerors. 

A past performance rating is not a precise mechanical process and 

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

27 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
will usually include some subjective judgment. While an

offeror's past performance in meeting contract technical

performance, schedule and cost control can be measured more or

less precisely against the contract requirements, business

relations and end user satisfaction with the offeror's

performance will be somewhat subjective. The documentation of

the final rating should include a description of the underlying

reasons for the conclusions reached. 

NEW CONTRACTORS

(Table of Contents)

FASA states that "[i]n the case of an offeror with respect to

which there is no information on past contract performance or

with respect to which information on past contract performance is

not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or

unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. "

Accordingly, on the rare occasion that no relevant experience

exists within the offeror's organization, the offeror's lack of

past performance should be treated as an unknown performance

risk. In other words, past performance should be treated as

neutral. This might be accomplished by giving a new firm the

average score of the other competing offerors and evaluating the

proposal in accordance with other stated evaluation criteria. In

this way, a strong technical or management proposal could help to

offset a lack of experience to a greater degree than would be the

case if that contractor had poor past performance but to a lesser

degree than if the contractor had good past performance. In any

case, the contract team must decide before issuing the

solicitation what approach it will take and so state in the

solicitation.

It should be remembered that, even if the firm is new or new to

the business area, it is probable that the key management and/or

technical/scientific personnel proposed for the contract have

some relevant experience. All solicitations should, therefore,

indicate that the offeror must provide a list of references where

the key personnel worked on similar contracts. An evaluation of

the performance of the proposed key personnel on relevant

contracts can be used, as appropriate, as part or all of the past

performance evaluation.

If the offeror has performance history on non relevant contracts;

i.e., a proven government or commercial performance record, but

not specifically on the type of work solicited; this information

might be used to demonstrate management potential and reduce

concerns in relation to risk. In addition, teaming relationships

can reduce performance risk of potential offerors, depending on

the relationships that exist within the teaming process. When

subcontractors will perform critical aspects of the work past

performance of these subcontractors should be evaluated. 

CHAPTER 6.

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORTS

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

28 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
(Table of Contents)

For the Government to implement an efficient system to evaluate

contractor past performance in source selection, each federal 

department and agency must develop a cost effective way to record

and disseminate contractor performance information. FAR 42.1502

requires agencies to prepare an evaluation of contractor

performance pursuant to a phase-in schedule. OFPP believes that

use of these performance evaluations can provide an efficient and

reliable source of past performance information. 

Currently, there are at least 12 past performance information

systems in use by various federal agencies and organizations. 

Where systems are in use that meet the requirements of FAR 42.15,

they may be continued at the discretion of the agencies. 

OFPP is encouraging the voluntary development of a uniform

government-wide format for recording contractor performance

information for ease of use by source selection officials from a

variety of federal organizations. 

 

Included at Appendix 3 is an interagency-developed Contractor

Performance Report form which is offered as one possible approach

to developing an agency-wide system. This form can also be used

by a source selection team as a questionnaire (survey form) to

request and record comments from a reference. This form is not

intended to represent the only way to comply with FAR Part 42.15,

Contractor Performance Information. Agencies that believe other

mechanisms would permit more cost effective evaluation of

contractor performance are encouraged to pursue them. The key is

to make the evaluations fit the type of information needed for

use in source selection for the type and complexity of the

contract. The only limitation is that all rating systems be

translatable into five basic ratings - excellent, good, fair,

poor and unsatisfactory - and one exceptional rating - excellent

plus - so that any source selection board can use information

from a variety of agencies. 

For construction contracts, Standard Form 1420, "Performance

Evaluation - Construction Contracts," will normally provide for

the collection of pertinent information.

For architectural and engineering contracts, Standard Form 1421,

"Performance Evaluation Architect-Engineer," will normally

provide for the collection of pertinent information.

OFPP suggests that contracts make reference to the performance

evaluation and the manner in which the evaluation will be

conducted.

COMPLETION OF THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

(Table of Contents)

The development of the performance evaluation is normally a

combined responsibility of the contracting officer and the

requiring program office represented by the contracting officer's

technical representative or other designated technical oversight

person. Where the contract provides products or services to end

users (persons outside the requiring technical organization) the

contract administration system should periodically survey these

customers and include a summary of the end user ratings in the

performance evaluation. 

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

29 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
For example, end user surveys would apply to computer services

contracts, major systems maintenance contracts where work is done

in the field, routine services contracts such as janitorial or

food service, as well as contracts where products are delivered

directly to various sites or where performance cannot be measured

until the product is used. 

Evaluations are required at the time the work under the contract

is completed. Interim evaluations should be prepared on

contracts with periods of performance, including options,

exceeding one year. Agency requirements for interim evaluations

should require them at sufficient intervals to be useful to

source selection officials seeking current performance

information about a contractor. 

Interim evaluations provide useful feedback to contractors on

their performance and provide them the opportunity to correct

problems before contract completion. An honest discussion of any

contractor problem areas is important to the government which is

seeking quality service and equally, if not more so, to the

contractor. Inasmuch as past performance evaluations will

directly affect the ability of the contractor to compete for

future contracts. 

RATINGS AREAS

(Table of Contents)

The sample Contractor Performance Report form sets out six areas

to rate the contractor's performance - Quality, Timeliness, Cost

Control, Business Relations, Customer Satisfaction and KeyPersonnel. 

As pointed out in Chapter 2, these are the basic

indicia of past performance. 

Three of the areas - Quality, Timeliness and Cost Control - can

be rated objectively by the program office and contracting

officer. The ratings should reflect how well the contractor

complied with the specific contract performance standards for

each area. How well the contractor holds up its end of the

bargain can, and should, be an essential consideration for future

business consideration. The comments should be concise, but

provide answers to questions about the performance that would be

asked by a source selection team. Here are a few examples:

The contractor provided software met all contract

performance requirements for ease of use and output. The

financial system package actually exceeded expectations in

its speed and accuracy.

The contractor met all contract milestones for development

and field installation of the systems. Some internal

contractor management milestones were missed, but timely

identification of problems and corrective actions kept the

program on schedule.

 

The contractor's cost management was excellent and resulted

in a 2 percent underrun from target cost.

 

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

30 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
While compliance is important, so is customer satisfaction. 

Satisfying the customer is the most important goal in the private

sector and should be the goal in the government sector. But,

this does not mean the government has any right to explicitly or

implicitly require or expect benefits not agreed to in the

contract. It does mean, however, that "service with a smile" is

more than a slogan. 

It is important to note that when dealing with the government,

there is more than one customer. Accordingly, the fourth rating

area evaluates the business relationship between the contractor

and the contract administration team. This rating should be

developed jointly by the contracting officer and the program

office. Questions to ask might be as follows: 

How cooperative was the contractor in working with the

government to solve problems?

Were contractor recommended solutions effective?

Was the contractor responsive to the administrative issues

of the contract? Did the contractor exhibit a propensity to submit

unnecessary contract change proposals with cost or price

increases?

 

 

The fifth rating area looks at the satisfaction of the end users. 

The best way to measure contractor performance at the end-user

level is the customer satisfaction survey. The quality assurance

plan prepared to administer a contract should contain the

procedures for receiving customer feedback on contractor

performance. This can be done through telephone calls by the

COTR, use of written survey forms, complaint boxes in strategic

locations, or other means of measuring end user satisfaction. If

it is not cost effective to survey all end users, then a random

sample should be selected for the survey. If the government is

unable to conduct the surveys, private information vendors offer

these services. 

End-users may be unfamiliar with the contract requirements and

may hold contractors to an unrealistic standard. The contracting

officer should evaluate the end user comments to determine if the

contractor reasonably tried to meet their demands within the

contract requirements. If the contractor met or exceeded

contract requirements in an attempt to please the end users this

should be noted on the evaluation form, even if the end users

were not totally satisfied with the service. In this case it may

well be that the service the government has contracted for is not

the service desired or needed by the customer. An evaluation of

the contract requirements should be undertaken with input from

the end users. 

A proven rating system for end user satisfaction measures the

percentage of end users that rate the product or service

satisfactory or better. It should be recognized that no product

or service can satisfy everyone. Therefore, an excellent rating

may be 95 percent of end users were satisfied with the service.

The sixth rating area is key personnel. Identifying how long key

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

31 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
personnel stayed on the contract and how well they managed their

portion of the contract can be of great benefit to source

selection officials. This information is critical when a newly

formed company is bidding on a contract and its past performance

history is based on the past performance of the key personnel. 

PERFORMANCE RATINGS

(Table of Contents)

The sample contractor performance report suggests that each

rating area be assigned one of six ratings: unsatisfactory,

poor, fair, good, excellent, or excellent plus (noted as "plus") 

An "unsatisfactory" rating would mean that nonconformances, cost 

control problems and delays on past work compromised the

achievement of contract requirements, and that response to

inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues were

ineffective and not responsive. By contrast, an "excellent"

rating would mean that there were no quality problems, cost

control problems or delays on work and response to inquiries,

technical, service, and administrative issues were effective and

responsive. A description of all performance ratings is provided

at the back of the sample report. 

The "excellent plus" rating should be reserved for instances

where a contractor carries out its end of the bargain in a truly

exceptional fashion -- e.g. in an emergency situation where the

contractor mobilizes from non contract resources a response much

faster than required by the contract. If this rating is given,

the comments section in the report should clearly explain why the

contractor earned this rating so source selection boards can

understand and give proper credit in their evaluation for this

performance. This rating may be given for any single area or on

an overall contract performance basis. Source selection boards

should not fail to recognize exceptional performance in one area

even if the overall contract performance rating is less. They

may weight the various areas depending on the critical areas of

their contract. A firm that is consistently rated "good" in most

areas but excellent plus in one area may win a contract over

other firms rated higher overall, if the source selection board

is most concerned about the area rated "plus". It should be

noted that if a numeric weighting system is used, "excellent

plus" is not assigned a suggested numerical weight. Inasmuch as

the value to the government for this sort of performance might go

well beyond that of even excellent performance, the use of a

"plus" is more appropriate than automatic use of a numerical

gradation one notch above excellent. A plus leaves to the source

selection team the discretion to give the appropriate amount of

"extra" credit in the evaluation commensurate with the

anticipated additional value of such performance. Such

recognition is important as these are the contractors with whom

the government needs to, and should, continue doing business. 

CONTRACTOR RESPONSE AND AGENCY REVIEW

(Table of Contents)

While the ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation is a

decision of the contracting agency, the FAR provides for

contractor comment. Upon completion of the initial evaluation by

the program and contracting office, which should be signed by the

program office person most familiar with the contractor's

performance, the form must be sent to the contractor for

comments. The required turnaround time for contractor response

may not be less than thirty days. See FAR 42.1503(b). If the

contractor fails to provide a response by the established

deadline, the contracting officer should sign the form in the

appropriate block and the government's comments can stand alone.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

32 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
If the contractor submits a rebutting statement for any or all of

the ratings and an agreement on the ratings cannot be reached by

the contractor and the contracting officer the disagreement shall

be reviewed by the agency under a procedure as follows: 

The review must be at least one level above the contracting

officer. See FAR 42.1503(b). Where contract administration

has been delegated by a PCO to an ACO the PCO may be

considered one level above for the review.

The decision resulting from the review must be in writing;

agencies should issue a decision within fifteen working days

from receipt of a rebuttal statement.

 

The contractor's statement and agency review must be

attached to the performance evaluation report and must be

provided to source selection officials requesting a

reference check.

 

The completed evaluations may be filed in the contract file or in

a separate file, or database where they can be readily accessed

by contracting office personnel. Interim evaluations should be

retained for the duration of the contract and included with the

final evaluation in the file. Keeping the interim evaluation

will allow analysis of performance trends during the contract. 

The evaluations shall not be retained for not more than three

years after completion of contract performance. 

 

In many cases the contracting officer or program personnel may

not be available to respond to source selection requests for the

performance information. Certain administrative personnel should

be designated to send past performance evaluations to other

requesting agencies. 

When another agency asks for a reference, the responding agency

should provide all evaluations for the period desired by the

requesting organization. 

RELEASE OF INFORMATION:

(Table of Contents)

FAR 42.1503(b) provides policy guidance on release of these

evaluations as follows:

Contractor evaluations may be used to support future

award decisions, and should therefore be marked "Source

Selection Information." The completed evaluation shall 

not be released to other than Government personnel and the

contractor whose performance is being evaluated during the

period the information may be used to provide source

selection information. Disclosure of such information could

cause harm both to the commercial interest of the

government, and to the competitive position of the

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

33 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
contractor being evaluated, as well as, impede the

efficiency of government operations.

Best Practices for Past Performance https://web.archive.org/web/20060501014352/http://www.acqnet.gov/Lib...

34 of 34 7/13/2016 1:36 PM
Past Performance PLEDGE

We, the undersigned agency officials and the Administrator for

Federal Procurement Policy, recognize that increased use of past

performance as an evaluation factor in the contract award process can 

improve our procurement system's ability to select quality suppliers

offering good prices.

 

The consideration of contractors' past performance in awarding

government contracts enables agencies to better predict the quality

of, and customer satisfaction with, future work. It also provides

contractors with a powerful incentive to strive for excellence.

Yet federal agencies often fail to give past performance sufficient

consideration when evaluating the relative capabilities of potential

suppliers. Now, more than ever, in the face of increasingly limited

resources, agencies must make better use of past performance

information in deciding which suppliers are most capable of

delivering the greatest value to the American public.

Accordingly, we pledge to:

 

 make past performance a major selection criterion in the award

 of the contracts identified on the attachment hereto;

 participate on interagency teams to make effective use of past

 performance information, including how best to structure

 solicitations and evaluate offers;

 identify and eliminate internal impediments to the maximum

 beneficial use of past performance; and

 cooperate with each other and the Office of Federal Procurement

 Policy to share experiences relevant to the expanded use

 of past performance information.

_____________________________________________

 Department of Agriculture

Appendix 1: Past Performance http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

1 of 6 7/13/2016 1:39 PM
_____________________________________________

 Department of Air Force

_____________________________________________

 Department of Commerce

_____________________________________________

 Department of Education

_____________________________________________

 Department of Energy

_____________________________________________

 Department of Health & Human Services

_____________________________________________

 Department of the Interior

_____________________________________________

 Department of Justice

_____________________________________________

 Department of Labor

_____________________________________________

 Department of State

_____________________________________________

 Department of Transportation

Appendix 1: Past Performance http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

2 of 6 7/13/2016 1:39 PM
_____________________________________________

 Department of the Treasury

_____________________________________________

 Department of Veterans' Affairs

_____________________________________________

 Bonneville Power Administration

_____________________________________________

 Defense Logistics Agency

_____________________________________________

 Environmental Protection Agency

_____________________________________________

 Federal Emergency Management Agency

_____________________________________________

 General Services Administration

_____________________________________________

 National Aeronautics & Space Administration

_____________________________________________

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

_____________________________________________

 Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Appendix 1: Past Performance http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

3 of 6 7/13/2016 1:39 PM
Washington, DC January 26, 1994

AGENCY CONTACT POINTS

FOR

PAST PERFORMANCE TEST PROGRAM

 

 ARMY MATERIAL COMMAND 

 Sylvia Linke 

 703-274-8976

 AIR FORCE 

 Kathryn Ekberg 

 703-614-1685

 Kathy Regan - Wright Patterson AFB

 513-257-6057

 BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

 Steve Kallio - HCA

 503-230-4297

 Ken Berglund - Contracting Officer

 503-230-4558

 COMMERCE 

 Michael Scheuchenzuber 

 202-482-5521

 James Murphy 

 703-305-4176

 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICE 

 Regina Hannigan 

 215-897-5447

 DEFENSE LOGISTIC AGENCY

 Tom Neufer 

 703-274-6431

 ENERGY 

 Ronald Cone

 202-586-9065

 Richard Leotta

 202-586-9073

 EDUCATION 

 William Sullivan 

 202-708-8264

 Glenn Perry 

 202-708-9781

 ENVIRONMENTATL PROTECTION AGENCY

 Pat Murphy 

 202-260-9737

 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

 Chris Makris 

 202-646-3743

 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

 FSS

 Fran Serles

 703-305-7953

 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 Nancy Weisman

 202-260-4573

 INTERIOR

 Dee Emmerich 

 202-208-3348

 JUSTICE 

 Pat Compton

Appendix 1: Past Performance http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

4 of 6 7/13/2016 1:39 PM
 202-514-6145

 LABOR

 OIG Contracting 

 Theodore Goldberg

 202-219-6747

 NASA

 Frances Sullivan 

 202-358-0488

 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Edward Halman 

 301-492-4347

 STATE 

 Walter Cate 

 703-516-1762

 TRANSPORTATION

 Larry Sawler

 202-366-4287

 TREASURY

 Susan Grodin

 202-622-0268

 VETERANS AFFAIRS 

 William S. Stapleton 

 202-233-3054

APPENDIX 1 

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION - CCC CONTRACTS

1. Contract Number:

2. Contractor (Name, Address and Zip Code):

3. Type of Contract: Negotiated ________ Sealed Bid __________

 Fixed Price: __________ Cost Reimbursement: __________

 Other (Specify): ___________________

4. Complexity of Work: Difficult __________ Routine __________

5. Description and location of Work: (Attached additional pages as

 necessary.)

Appendix 1: Past Performance http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

5 of 6 7/13/2016 1:39 PM
6. Contract Amount: _________________________

 Status: Active: _________ Complete:_________

7. Date of Award: ____________________________________________

 Contract Completion Date (Including Extentions): _____________

8. Type and Extent of Subcontracting: (Attach additional pages 

 as necessary.)

9. Name, Address and Telephone Number of the Contracting

 officer's Technical Representative (COTR):

A separate record must be completed for all contracts awarded the competing organization within the past five

years. A Performance Evaluation document will be submitted to the COTR for completion and used to evaluate

your organization's past performance.

Return to The Best Practices Table of Contents 

Appendix 1: Past Performance http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

6 of 6 7/13/2016 1:39 PM
 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF CONTRACT

(Check Appropriate Box)

Performance ELements

Outstanding

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

1. Quality of Work

2. Timely Performance

3. Effectiveness of Management

4. Compliance with Labor

 Standards

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

1 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
5. Compliance with Safety

 Standards

6. Handling Staff Integrity

 Issues

7. Facility Maintenance &

 Repair

8. Personnel Management

 Practices

9. Overall Evaluation

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

2 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
EVALUATED BY

A. Organization:

B. Name and Title:

 Signature: ______________________________ Date:__________________

7. Remarks on outstanding performance: Provide data supporting this

 observation. (Continue on separate sheet if needed.)

8. Remarks on unsatisfactory performance: Provide data supporting the

 observation. (Continue on separate sheet if needed.)

Note: If verbal telephonic response received, complete the following:

Information obtained by: _____________________ _____________________

 Printed Name Signature

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

3 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

I. CONTRACT IDENTIFICATION

 A. CONTRACTOR _________________________

 B. CONTRACT NUMBER _________________________

 C. CONTRACT TYPE _________________________

 

 COMPETITIVE { } YES { } NO

 FOLLOW-ON { } YES { } NO

 D. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE ___________________________________

 ESTIMATED COST FIRM

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

4 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 FEE VALUE FIXED

 TOTAL PRICE

 E. INITIAL CONTRACT COST _______ _______ _______

 F. CURRENT CONTRACT COST _______ _______ _______

 G. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION _______________________________________

 AND/OR SERVICE

 PROVIDED _______________________________________

 _______________________________________

******Note that Item II. is Missing from the original document***********

III. AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

5 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 A. NAME ______________________________

 B. DESCRIPTION ______________________________

 C. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION

 OF SERVICES UNDER THIS

 CONTRACT, I.E. LOCAL,

 NATIONWIDE, WORLDWIDE ______________________________

 D. NUMBER OF LOCATIONS

 SERVICED BY THIS

 CONTRACT _______________________________

IV. EVALUATION

 A. PERFORMANCE HISTORY

 1. To what extent did the contractor adhere to

 contract delivery schedules?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.....{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...................{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements........................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

6 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 2. To what extent did the contractor submit required reports

 and documentation in a timely manner?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 3. To what extent were the contractor's reports and

 documentation accurate and complete?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum contractual requirements...{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 4. To what extent was the contractor able to solve contract

 performance problems without extensive guidance from government

 counterparts?

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

7 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 Considerably successful.....................{ } 4

 Generally successful........................{ } 3

 Little success..............................{ } 2

 No success..................................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 5. To what extent did the contractor display initiative in

 meeting requirements?

 Displayed considerable initiative...........{ } 4

 Displayed some initiative...................{ } 3

 Displayed little initiative.................{ } 2

 Displayed no initiative.....................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 6. Did the contractor commit adequate resources in timely

 fashion to the contract to meet the requirement and to

 successfully solve problems?

 Provided abundant resources.................{ } 4

 Provided sufficient resources...............{ } 3

 Provided minimal resources..................{ } 2

 Provided insufficient resources.............{ } 1

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

8 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 7. To what extent did the contractor submit change

 orders and other required proposals in a timely manner?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum...........................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 8. To what extent did the contractor respond

 positively and promptly to technical directions,

 contract change orders, etc.?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

9 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 ________________________________________________________

 9. To what extent was the contractor's maintenance and

 problem tracking/reporting documentation timely, accurate,

 and of appropriate content?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 10. To what extent was the contractor effective in

 interfacing with the Government'S staff?

 Extremely effective.........................{ } 4

 Generally effective.........................{ } 3

 Generally ineffective.......................{ } 2

 Extremely ineffective.......................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

10 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
B. TERMINATION HISTORY

 11. Has this contract been partially or completely

 terminated for default or convenience?

 { } Yes { } Default { }Conveniencd

 { } No

 If yes, explain (e.g., inability to meet cost, performance, or

 delivery schedules). _________________________________________

 ______________________________________________________________

 ______________________________________________________________

 12. Are there any pending terminations?

 { } Yes { } No

 If yes, explain and indicate the status. _____________________

 ______________________________________________________________

 ______________________________________________________________

C. EXPERIENCE HISTORY

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

11 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 13. How effective has the contractor been in

 identifying user requirements?

 Extremely effective.........................{ } 4

 Generally effective.........................{ } 3

 Generally ineffective.......................{ } 2

 Extremely ineffective.......................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 14. What level of integration experience has the contractor

 demonstrated in the reconfiguration of government owned

 software, commercial software, and government furnished

 hardware?

 Considerably surpassed minimum experience...{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum experience.................{ } 3

 Met minimum experience requirements.........{ } 2

 Less than minimum experience................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 15. To what extent was the maintenance and problem

 reporting/tracking documentation produced by the

 contractor's efforts satisfactory to the users?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

12 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 16. To what extent did the contractor coordinate,

 integrate, and provide for effective subcontractor

 management?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 17. To what extent did the contractor provide timely

 technical assistance, both on-site and off-site, when

 responding to problems encountered in the field?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

13 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 18. To what extent did the contractor achieve effective 

 logistics support, i.e. replacement parts, personnel, etc.?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 19. To what extent did the contractor provide quality

 replacement parts?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

14 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 20. To what extent did the contractor meet the

 repair/response times in the contract?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 21. Did this contract include a Help Desk?

 { } Yes { } No

 If yes, to what extent was the contractor responsive to

 users contacting the Help Desk for assistance?

 Considerably surpassed minimum requirements.{ } 4

 Exceeded minimum requirements...............{ } 3

 Met minimum requirements....................{ } 2

 Less than minimum requirements..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

15 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 22. If there was a Help Desk, were users able to make

 contact with the Help Desk personnel on their first attempt?

 Always able on the first attempt............{ } 4

 More often than not on the first attempt....{ } 3

 Rarely able on the first attempt............{ } 2

 Never on the first attempt..................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 23. Were the Help Desk personnel courteous and responsive?

 Always courteous and responsive.............{ } 4

 Usually courteous and responsive............{ } 3

 Rarely courteous and responsive.............{ } 2

 Never courteous and responsive..............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 24. were user questions resolved in a timely manner?

 Always resolved in a timely manner..........{ } 4

 Usually resolved in a timely manner.........{ } 3

 Rarely resolved in a timely manner..........{ } 2

 Never resolved in a timely manner...........{ } 1

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

16 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 25. How technically qualified were the Help Desk personnel?

 Extremely qualified.........................{ } 4

 Satisfactorily qualified....................{ } 3

 Minimally qualified.........................{ } 2

 Technically deficient.......................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 26. How satisfied are you with the contractor's Help Desk

 problem escalation procedures?

 Extremely satisfied.........................{ } 4

 Satisfactorily satisfied....................{ } 3

 Minimally satisfied.........................{ } 2

 Unsatisfied.................................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

17 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
 ________________________________________________________

 27. How technically qualified were the maintenance

 personnel?

 Extremely qualified.........................{ } 4

 Satisfactorily qualified....................{ } 3

 Minimally qualified.........................{ } 2

 Technically deficient.......................{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

D. COST MANAGEMENT

 28. To what extend did the contractor meet the proposed

 cost estimates?

 Less than estimated cost....................{ } 4

 Comparatively equal to estimate.............{ } 3

 Exceeded the costs..........................{ } 2

 Considerably surpassed estimate.............{ } 1

 Comment: _______________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

18 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
NARRATIVE SUMMARY

 Use this section to explain additional information not

 included above.

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

 ________________________________________________________

Return to the Best Practices Table of Contents 

APPENDIX 2: Sample Questionnaires http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

19 of 19 7/13/2016 1:40 PM
APPENDIX 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT

RATING GUIDELINES

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT INSTRUCTIONS

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT

(Appendix 3 Table of Contents)

 [] Final [] Interim - Period Report: From _________________To_________________

1. Contractor Name and Address:

 (Identify Division)

2. Contract Number:_______________________________

3. Contract Value (Base Plus Options):

 _______________________________________________

4. Contract Award Date:

 _______________________________________________

 Contract Completion Date:

5. Type of Contract: (Check all that apply) --

 [] FP [] FPI [] FP-EPA [] Award Fee [] CPFF - Completion [] CPFF - Term 

 [] CPIF [] CPAF [] ID/IQ [] BOA [] Requirements [] Labor Hour

 [] T&M [] SBSA 8(a) [] SBIR [] Sealed Bid [] Negotiated

 [] Competitive [] Non-Competitive 

6. Description of Requirement:

Appendix 3: Contractor Performance Report http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

1 of 8 7/13/2016 1:42 PM
7. Ratings. Summarize contractor performance and circle in the column on the right

 the number which corresponds to the performance rating for each rating category. 

 Please see page three for explanation of rating scale.

Quality 0 1 2 3 4 + 

Comments

Cost Control 0 1 2 3 4 + 

Comments

Timeliness of Performance 0 1 2 3 4 + 

Comments

Business Relations Comments 0 1 2 3 4 + 

Comments

Customer Satisfaction (End Users) 0 1 2 3 4 + 

Comments

Mean Score (Add the ratings above and divide by number of areas rated)

Appendix 3: Contractor Performance Report http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

2 of 8 7/13/2016 1:42 PM
8. Key Personnel

Project Manager Name ______________________ Employment Dates ______________

Comments/Rating

 Name ______________________ Employment Dates ______________

Comments/Rating

 Name ______________________ Employment Dates ______________

Comments/Rating

 Name ______________________ Employment Dates ______________

Comments/Rating

 Name ______________________ Employment Dates ______________

Comments/Rating

9. Would you select this firm again? Please explain.

10. Program Officer Name Signature

 Phone/FAX/Internet Address Date

11. Contractor's Review. Were comments, rebuttals, or additional information

 provided? [] No [] Yes. Please attach comments.

Appendix 3: Contractor Performance Report http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

3 of 8 7/13/2016 1:42 PM
12. Contractor Name Signature

 Phone/FAX/Internet Address Date

13. Agency Review. Were contractor comments reviewed at a level above the contracting

 officer? [] No [] Yes. Please attach comments. Number of pages __________

14. Final Ratings. Re-assess the Block 7 ratings based on contractor comments and

 agency review. Revise block 7 rating, if appropriate.

 Quality ______ Cost Control ______ Timeliness ______ 

 Customer Satisfaction: CA Team ______ End User______

Mean Score (Add the ratings above and divide by number of areas rated)

15. Contracting Officer Name Signature

 Phone/FAX/Internet Address Date

Return to Appendix 3 Table of Contents

Return to Best Practices Table of Contents 

Appendix 3: Contractor Performance Report http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

4 of 8 7/13/2016 1:42 PM
RATING GUIDELINES

(Appendix 3 Table of Contents) 

Summarize contractor performance in each of the rating areas.

Assign each area a rating of 0 (Unsatisfactory), 1 (Poor),

2 (Fair), 3 (Good), 4 (Excellent), or ++ (Plus). Use the 

following instructions as guidance in making these evaluations. 

Ensure that this assessment is consistent with any other Agency

assessments made (i.e., for payment of fee purposes). 

NOTE: The following sets of Tables are very wide.

 Quality of Timeliness Business 

 Product/Service Cost Control of Performance Relations 

 -Compliance with -Within budget (over/under -Met interim milestones -Effective management

 contract requirements target costs) -Reliable -Businesslike correspondence

 -Accuracy of reports -Current, accurate, and -Responsive to technical -Responsive to contract

 -Appropriateness of complete billings direction requirements

 personnel -Relationship of negotiated -Completed on time, -Prompt notification of

 -Technical excellence costs to actuals including wrap-up and problems

 -Cost efficiencies contract administration -Reasonable/cooperative 

 -Change orders issue -No liquidated damages -Flexible 

 assessed -Pro-active

 -Effective contractor- -Effective small/small

 recommended solutions disadvantaged business

 subcontracting program

0. Unsatisfactory

 Nonconformances Cost issues are compromising Delays are compromising Response to inquiries,

 are compromising the performance of contract the achievement of technical/service/

 achievement of requirements. contract requirements, administrative issues

 contract requirements, despite use of Agency is not effective and

 despite use of Agency resources. responsive.

 resources.

 

1. Poor

 Nonconformances Cost issues require major Delays require major Response to inquiries, 

 require major Agency Agency resources to ensure Agency resources to technical/service/ 

 resources to ensure achievement of contract ensure achievement of administrative issues

 achievement of requirements. contract requirements. is marginally effective

 contract requirements. and responsive.

Appendix 3: Contractor Performance Report http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

5 of 8 7/13/2016 1:42 PM
2. Fair

 Nonconformances Cost issues require minor Delays require minor Response to inquiries,

 require minor Agency Agency resources to ensure Agency resources to technical/service/

 resources to ensure achievement of contract ensure achievement of administrative issues

 achievement of requirements. contract requirements. is somewhat effective

 contract requirements. and responsive.

3. Good

 Nonconformances Cost issues do not impact Delays do not impact Response to inquiries,

 do not impact achievement of contract achievement of contract technical/service/

 achievement of requirements. requirements. administrative issues

 contract requirements. is usually effective and 

 responsive. 

4. Excellent

 There are no quality There are no cost issues. There are no delays. Response to inquiries,

 problems. technical/service/

 administrative issues

 is effective and 

 responsive.

++ PLUS The contractor has demonstrated an exceptional performance level in any of the above four categories that

 justifies adding a point to the score. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare

 circumstances when contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Excellent."

Return to Appendix 3 Table of Contents

Return to Best Practices Table of Contents 

Appendix 3: Contractor Performance Report http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

6 of 8 7/13/2016 1:42 PM
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE REPORT INSTRUCTIONS

(Appendix 3 Table of Contents)

Block 1: Contractor Name and Address. Identify the specific

division being evaluated if there is more than one.

Block 2: Contract number of contract being evaluated.

Block 3: Contract value shall include base plus options. If

funding was increased or decreased during the evaluation period,

the value in this block should reflect the change.

Block 4: Contract award date and anticipated or anticipated

contract completion date.

Block 5: Type of Contract: Check all that apply.

Block 6: Provide a brief description of the work being done

under the contract and identify the key performance indicators.

This description will allow agencies calling for reference checks

to compare statements of work.

Block 7: Circle rating in far right column and provide brief

narrative for each of the categories rated. Indicate the

contract requirements that were exceeded or were not met by the

contractor and by how much. Also calculate the mean score of the

ratings.

Block 8: List the names and employment dates of the contractor's

key personnel. This will provide a record of how long these

managers worked on the contract. If there were many changes in

these managers a second page may be necessary. On the

comment/rating line briefly describe the managers performance.

Block 9: If given a choice, please explain why you would or why

you would not select the contractor for this contract again.

Block 10: The program office person most familiar with the

contractor's performance should sign this block. The rating is a

combined program office, contracting officer decision. The

contracting officers signature in block 15, signifies concurrence

with this rating and the final rating, if a revised rating is

necessary.

Blocks 11-12: The contractor may provide comments but must sign

block 12 to indicate review of the rating.

Block 13: If the contractor and contracting officer are unable

to agree on a final rating, an agency review at a level above the

contracting officer is required.

Block 14: Adjust the ratings assigned in block 7, if

appropriate, based on any comments, rebuttals, or additional

information provided by the contractor and, if necessary, by the

agency review. Calculate a mean score of the contractor's

performance.

Block 15: The contracting officer's signature certifies

concurrence with the initial and final ratings.

Appendix 3: Contractor Performance Report http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

7 of 8 7/13/2016 1:42 PM
Return to Appendix 3 Table of Contents

Return to Best Practices Table of Contents 

Appendix 3: Contractor Performance Report http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps6217/www.acqnet.gov/library/ofpp/B...

8 of 8 7/13/2016 1:42 PM