The agency’s evaluation of past performance and experience must be reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. The contracting personnel awarding a contract must base an evaluation upon information sufficient to make a reasonable determination of the offeror’s relevant information close at hand or known. For example, an agency’s determination that the corporate experience of the awardee was equivalent to that of the incumbent was reasonable where the awardee performed contract work very similar to the work required under the solicitation and where the awardee’s proposed key management personnel possessed significant relevant experience (Oceaneering Intl. Inc.).

Currency. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) requires an agency must consider how current is a firm’s past performance and experience. The GAO agreed with the agency that the protester was not entitled to a higher rating than the awardee simply because the firm previously had furnished the item requested by the solicitation and the awardee had not. In this case, the protester’s experience was not recent and both the protester and awardee had recent experience producing the item (Eagle-Picher Techs. LLC, B-289093).

Attribution. In determining whether one company’s performance should be attributed to another company, an agency must consider the nature and extent of the relationship between the two companies – in particular, whether the workforce, management, facilities or other resources of one may affect contract performance by the other. The GAO has stated the key consideration is whether the past performance identified by the offeror can be considered predictive of the offeror’s performance on the contract. For example, it would be inappropriate for an agency to consider a company’s performance record where that record does not bear on the likelihood of successful performance. In contrast, an agency should consider a company’s performance record where it will be involved in the contract effort or where it shares management with the offeror (Lynwood Mach. & Eng;g Inc. B-285696).

An agency may look beyond past performance history of the offeror and look at key employees, the corporate management or a predecessor company if it is reasonable to do so under the circumstances. For example, an agency properly considered the performance record of a company other than the one submitting the quote where the company submitting the quote intended to rely heavily on the other company’s personnel in performing the job (Al Hamra Kuwait co. B-288970 and MCS of Tampa Inc. B-288271). In evaluating the experience and past performance of a joint venture under a mentor-protégé program, the agency properly considered that the small business protégé which would be performing the majority of work had no relevant experience (Urban-Meridian Joint Venture, B-287168). An agency is not required to impute to the protégé the totality of its proposed mentor’s experience and past performance where the mentor was not proposed to play a major role in the contract performance (BioGenesis Pac. Inc., B-283738). Finally, an agency may properly consider the experience of supervisory personnel in evaluating the experience of a new business but there is no legal requirement that an agency attribute employee experience to an entity if again it is not reasonable to do so (Blue Rock Structures Inc. B-287960).

Relevance of Past Performance Information. When a solicitation requires evaluation of past performance an agency has discretion on the scope of performance history to consider as long as all proposals are evaluated on the same basis and consistent with the solicitation’s requirements (Symtech Corp. B-285358). The GAO found the agency reasonably determined that experience on full food service contracts was less relevant than experience on mess attendant services (Ti Hu Inc., B-284360). For a solicitation for a quantity of leather, the agency reasonably disregarded non-leather supply contracts (Power Connector, B-286875). In a procurement for construction of a bearthing wharf for nuclear power aircraft carriers, the GAO denied a protest where offeror asserted it should have received a higher rating based on numerous smaller projects and stated the agency reasonably concluded that an offeror with no comparable large project experience presented higher performance risk (Marathon Constr. Corp., B-284816).

An agency may disregard past performance references that in its view are not relevant. For example, the GAO rejected the protester’s contention the agency improperly excluded two references submitted by the firm finding the contracts were not relevant to the procurement (Symtech Corp.). The GAO confirmed that contract dollar value is a reasonable consideration where the agency found a firm’s proposal as technically unacceptable where it had not performed three projects with a contract dollar value comparable to that being required (Knightsbridge Constr. Corp. B-291475).

Use of Scoring or Formulas. An agency’s evaluation should be based on a reasonable assessment of the past performance information where evaluations based on formulas or mechanical scoring can often cause problems. The GAO reversed an award for a federal supply schedule contract because the record showed the agency’s evaluation of past performance, which had relied on a mechanical comparison of past performance scores for incumbent contractors, was unsupported and unreasonable (OSI Collection Servs, Inc., B-286597). Another award was reversed for freight transportation services where it was found past performance was unreasonable when (1) the agency focused on the absolute number of problem shipments without considering the number of shipments the offeror had made in the relevant time period (2) the evaluation documents contained no evidence the agency had complied with the solicitation instructions to "look for reasons, explanations or clarifications" for past performance problems and (3) in determining on-time delivery percentage the agency failed to consider the wide variance in the offerors’ shipping volumes over the relevant periods (Green Valley Transp. Inc. B-285283).

Neutral Ratings. An offeror without a record of relevant past performance or whom information is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. Where the record showed the firm failed to submit in its proposal detailed information showing it had performed contracts relevant to the solicited effort, the GAO concluded that the evaluators had reasonably rated the firm as "neutral with unknown confidence" (Boland Well Sys. Inc. B-287030). Under a solicitation calling for no fewer than three questionnaires of an offeror’s past performance references the agency reasonably assigned a neutral/unknown confidence rating when it received only one reference (Thomas Brand Siding Co. B-B286914). However, the award of an order at a significant price premium based on the reason the vendor quoting the lower price had no prior performance history in supplying the item was unreasonable where the award decision was not made in accordance with the stated evaluation scheme (National Aerospace Group Inc. B-281958).

Risk Assessments. A firm’s lack of experience can be part of a risk evaluation. An evaluation of a protester’s experience for risk-rating purposes properly took into account the fact the protester had not performed contracts that were similar in size and scope to the contract contemplated (Molina Eng’g Ltd/ Tri-J Indus Joint Venture (B-2842895).

Unequal Relaxation of Requirements. An agency must not relax the requirements of a solicitation for one but not other offerors. An agency improperly relaxed the awardee’s minimum qualification requirement that key personnel have experience in the operation and maintenance of a comparable government functional activity of the same or similar scope where the awardee’s key personnel lacked requisite government experience (Meridian Mgmt.Corp, Johnson Controls World Servs. Inc. B-281287).

Responsibility Versus Past Performance. An agency may use traditional responsibility factors as technical evaluation factors in a negotiated procurement as long as the agency performs a comparative evaluation of these factors. The GAO found an agency did not convert its technical evaluation process into a responsibility determination where the record showed the award was based on a comparative evaluation of past performance of the offerors (Goode Constr. Inc. B-288655). In contrast, when using the lowest price, technically acceptable source selection process, past performance must be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15-305 but the comparative assessment discussed in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) – currency, relevance, source and context of the information as well as general trends in the contractor’s performance - does not apply. If a CO determines the past performance of a small business is not acceptable, this matter must be referred to the SBA for a certificate of competency determination in accordance with procedures in FAR Part 19.6 (Phil Howry Co. B-291402).

Source of Information. An agency is only required to make a reasonable effort to contract a firm’s references. When agency’s reasonable efforts to contact a reference are unsuccessful the agency may proceed with its evaluation without the benefit of the reference (Lynwood Mach. & Eng’g Inc.). Despite repeated efforts the agency could contact only one of the protester’s three listed references. The agency’s evaluations of the past performance was considered reasonable when it was based on the one reference and the agency’s assessment of the protester’s subcontract performance under a prior contract (North Am. Aerodynamics Inc. B-285651). An agency is not required to contact all of a firm’s references but it must act reasonably in determining which references to contact (Lynwood).

An agency may consider information obtained from a source not identified by the firm in its proposal. There is no requirement that the agency go beyond the reference information identified in the firm’s proposal (Lynwood). Finally, an agency may rely on information retrieved from an electronic database to evaluate past performance without giving the firm an opportunity to comment on negative information in the database where the record shows the contractor had previously been given ample opportunities to clarify adverse past performance information in the database and there was no reason to question the validity of the information (TLT Constr. Corp., B-286226).

History of Filing Claims and Protests. While the GAO has recognized it is appropriate to consider a contractor’s "combative" attitude, absent some evidence of an abuse of the contract disputes process agencies should not lower an offeror’s past performance evaluation based solely on the firms pursuit of claims or protests. In one decision the GAO found the evaluation of a protester’s past performance was unreasonable because the agency improperly considered the protester’s legitimate exercise of rights under its contract to be evidence of negative past performance (OneSource Energy Servs. B-283445).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}