I have always regarded Past Performance rather skeptically, not because it is a bad idea, but because it is difficult to properly capture and present as part of a proposal, and nearly as difficult to evaluate. These difficulties stem from the inherent subjectivity and vulnerability of the process. These factors confound the Contracting Officer that must design the survey, request extensive external support in its completion, and then analyze its results. In theory, Past Performance evaluation surveys are a wonderful tool and I heartily encourage their use. In practice, however, they are of limited value, for a number of reasons.
First, they must be properly planned, designed, distributed, collected, and analyzed; all of which amount to a great deal of commitment for questionable payoff. These activities all take time, dedication, and a certain level of experience. To be of any value, the surveys must be prepared and submitted to past customers and Contracting Officers well in advance of the RFP submission date (the earlier the better). And the survey must feature the right questions – they must relate to the new requirement and must be easily quantifiable for analysis. Otherwise, they offer little value and could even impede the Source Selection process.
Second, much of the value of the survey depends on the commitment and cooperation of past customers and Contracting Officers and their willingness to provide substantive input. It is hard to get responses completed and submitted in a timely manner. Part of this is based on the dynamics of the market – COs move on to other jobs or retire and customers (government agencies) and Contracting Officers’ Representatives also change, so the Past Performance survey often does not reach the correct recipient who is qualified to respond to it.
Third, I agree with the intent behind this requirement but nevertheless acknowledge its difficulty: “Past Performance must be evaluated as ‘neutral’ if no supporting documentation is provided.” Naturally, new companies have not performed on previous contracts, so this condition avoids the Catch-22 for new participants, but the ‘Neutral’ rating complicates the Source Selection and muddies the waters of what is hoped to be a very clear, objective process.
So the process is rather tenuous at best. It requires active and intense preparation and depends upon many variables to all be adequately fulfilled in order to offer any substantive input. But Contracting Officers must account for Past Performance, so this often defaults to the offeror’s submission (also known as marketing materials). And therein lies the subjectivity – of course the offering company will tout their abilities, expertise and successes.
These factors all combine to leave me with a dose of skepticism regarding Past Performance submissions, whether by the offeror or by past Contracting Officers and CORs. Instead of attempting to apply a quantifiable evaluation of Past Performance, I tend to view Past Performance submittals as more of a Yes/No proposition. Do they have recent and relevant past performance and is it basically positive? If so, then I tend to review that submittal favorably and move on. No Past Performance means “Neutral” rating, so the real factor for me is if they either claim experience that does not really match the new requirement, or if they actually admit to less-successful outcomes. And therein lays more subjectivity, because even “excellent” past performers will have dealt with hiccups and setbacks – it is not a guarantee of faultless future performance. No one and nothing is perfect, and the government is foolish to expect such standards. But the key to Past Performance will be in how the contractor addressed these challenges, and how they present the positive improvements they have made since then.
In conclusion, Past Performance is an essential element of a proposal and should be evaluated as thoroughly as possible. But the reality is that the process and results are easily skewed and must be taken with a grain of salt. And in a mature market with experienced contractors, Past Performance gradually declines in significance. Over time, COs get to know the contractors, winners and non-winners, so past performance will gradually fade as familiarity with the companies increases. Source selections still have evaluation factors, but the CO that knows a given company will have a clearer impression of the company’s capabilities and record of success. The offeror must still meet the requirements of Section L and M with their Past Performance submittal, but the CO’s familiarity will mitigate a lot of the ambiguities discussed above.