Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs
awayforward

Past Performance

Recommended Posts

 If a solicitation states "Past performance information will not be considered for predecessor companies, proposed subcontractors or key personnel", does this mean if  a proposing prime acquired  company A and company B, the proposing prime cannot use company A &B's past performance?   Why would the government exclude the past performance of subs. including newly acquired entities if it is relevant?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

I don't think that Companies A and B would be considered predecessors, but you'd best check with the CO.

I don't know why the government would exclude subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PepeTheFrog
2 hours ago, awayforward said:

Why would the government exclude the past performance of subs.

 

1 hour ago, Vern Edwards said:

I don't know why the government would exclude subs.

For the same reason the Government might exclude the past performance of constituent members of a newly established joint venture, and only accept past performance from the joint venture entity itself, performing as the joint venture. Teamwork and synergy matters. 

Corporations A, B, and C form Joint Venture D (JVD). A, B, and C do excellent work, and have stellar past performance, but who knows if they will work together successfully as JVD? Maybe JVD will have "negative synergy" and be a huge failure.

Similarly, maybe the subcontractor does excellent work, and has stellar past performance. The Government will not be signing a contract with the subcontractor-- the prime contractor is solely responsible for contract execution. A fantastic subcontractor is not guaranteed to solve the problems of a poorly performing prime contractor.

To mitigate or eliminate concerns like these, sometimes the Government further narrows the range of acceptable entities for past performance. PepeTheFrog thinks (based on a hazy memory of GAO decisions) the standard or default position is that subcontractors and constituent members of joint ventures can be used for past performance. If there is significant program risk, the Government might want to be more stringent in what is accepted for past performance.

Of course, the Government could use the standard or default position, accept a broad range of entities for past performance, and then take these different relationships and entities into account. The Government could carefully think it over, and incorporate those factors into the past performance evaluation. But that would require precision, confidence, competence, and independent thought!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PepetheFrog hit the nail on the head for why we have restricted past performance to primes versus allowing reports on subs and key personnel.  

Joint ventures are particularly troublesome to deal witth because they tend to be creeated just for your requirement and are to not be treated favorably or unfavorably (the old "neutral").  If you restrict past performance to primes and then you discover one of the partners has poor performance, you won't be able to use that information to lower thier score.   (At least not directly and above board).     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
5 hours ago, awayforward said:

Why would the government exclude the past performance of subs. including newly acquired entities if it is relevant?

 

3 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

For the same reason the Government might exclude the past performance of constituent members of a newly established joint venture, and only accept past performance from the joint venture entity itself, performing as the joint venture. Teamwork and synergy matters. 

 

3 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

Of course, the Government could use the standard or default position, accept a broad range of entities for past performance, and then take these different relationships and entities into account. The Government could carefully think it over, and incorporate those factors into the past performance evaluation. But that would require precision, confidence, competence, and independent thought!  

Well, there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...