The Office of Federal Procurement Policy issued in June “Best Practices for Collecting and Using Current and Past Performance Information.”  The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 acknowledged the relevance of past performance in contract award decisions and directed the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to establish government-wide policies.  The rules have been progressively added to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (e.g. FAR Part 9, “Contractor Qualifications”; 12, “Commercial Item Acquisition”; 15, “Contracting by Negotiation”; 36, “Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts”; and 42, “Contract Administration”) and are being evolved through a growing body of bid protest decisions.  The guide, which is not to be mandatory, intends to summarize the regulations and the most recent decisions.

The OFPP envisions a system where contractor past performance information will inform source selection decisions on a majority of government contracts where performance evaluation will eventually be automated and accessible to most government agencies. The guide tracks four basic performance elements – cost, schedule, technical performance and business relations/customer satisfaction – and uses a five-tiered rating system similar to that used by the Defense Department.  The ratings will include a high of 5 (for exceptional performance), a low of 1 (unsatisfactory performance) and 4 (very good), 3 (satisfactory) and 2 (marginal).  The ratings will correspond to the contractor’s performance that exceeds contract requirements (5), somewhat exceeds requirements (4), meets requirements (3), does not meet some (2) or does not meet contract requirements with recovery unlikely (1).  Raters are instructed to use narrative explanations to augment the numeric system so other COs may understand the supporting rationale.

A final contractor performance assessment must be prepared at the close of all contracts valued at over $100,000.  The themes of “no surprises” and “communication, communication, communication” are stressed throughout the guide where periodic evaluations of contract performance (at least once every six months) and promptly communicating the results will provide fairness and be a significant motivator for contractors to maintain high quality and improve inadequate performance.  

A history of claims litigation is not to be used as a basis of downgrading proposals.  COs and other officials are advised when making performance assessments to pay attention to how the “role of government” may have contributed to problems in prior contracts.  The guide references FAR by making sure contractors have the opportunity to comment on the assessment within a few days of its being finalized.  If necessary to reach consensus contractors may seek a face-to-face meeting with the CO and review the evaluation one level above the CO.  

Since automated access is envisioned, use of past performance information for source selection should be efficient and convenient for agencies under the guide.  Offerors should only be required to identify relevant contracts not more than three years old.  During the source selection process, contractors should be encouraged to discuss any adverse past performance issues and identify corrective action taken.  The government is encouraged to choose wisely the past performance subfactors it deems relevant to the solicitation and make sure the statement of work and instructions to offerors is reasonable and logical and it is clear how past performance will be evaluated.

In determining how the past performance relates to a solicitation the government is encouraged to use risk assessments (e.g. high risk rating for negative past performance).  When past performance is unavailable the offeror cannot be evaluated positively or negatively so the guide recommends a middle score of 3.  Past performance related to similar work for commercial or state or local entities should also be considered.

The text is available at http://www.arnet.gov/Library/OFPP/BestPractices/pastperformguide.html .  We also refer the interested reader to a recent two part series in the first two GCA REPORT issues of FY 2000 for a summary of regulations and practical advice to maximize your evaluations.

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}