Past Performance Evaluation

[formerfed]

I recently saw three solicitations (two from same agency but different offices and COs) that didn’t include past performance as an evaluation factor.  Checking with those offices, they don’t consider past performance as a meaningful discriminator any longer.  Complaints range from almost all CPARS ratings are at the high end, references don’t respond to inquires, even when finding references that do talk critical information received over the phone isn’t accepted by legal and review boards unless endorsed by senior agency officials, and generally while agreeing the concept is valid it’s not implemented in a way to be helpful.

I thought this all is interesting but true.  What do you think?

 

[C Culham]

Makes me wonder if the CO's and those within the acquisition team, in their own personal procurements for major items, consider past performance of the entity when making a selection of vendor for a product or service?   Not that I do it 100% percent of the time but more often than not if it is for something major.

[formerfed]

The person I talked with brought up this exact point.  The original concept allowed to government to consider past performance much like consumers.  Over time it evolved into a rigid and structured process that doesn’t differentiate, at least for mid to major acquisitions according to the individual I chatted with.  All companies get to the same CPARS ratings.  One can’t talk to individual customers and get frank and pertinent feedback.  Even if he did and made phone notes about a company did a poor job, how is that considered?  His point is legal wants senior agency management to confirm that in writing and asks why isn’t that in CPARS?  No one will do that.

His requirement is a typical DoD professional and technical services one.  All capable offerors evaluate the same on past performance.  They all submit only favorable past performance experience references - agency must only ask for 3-5 experiences that the company cherry picks from so why do that?  He might know of bad situations from other agencies but can’t get someone to provide honest or critical feedback to get it

[C Culham]

I think the original concept is still valid and the agency has put themselves into the rigid and structured process for no good reason.  The FAR guiding principles allow it and an agency's failure to allow the guiding principles in their RFP process is....well not good business in my view.

The FAR says this at 15.305(a)(2)(ii)  (emphasis added) -    (ii)The solicitation shall describe the approach for evaluating past performance, including evaluating offerors with no relevant performance history, and shall provide offerors an opportunity to identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The solicitation shall also authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the offeror’s corrective actions. The Government shall consider this information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror’s past performance. The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information.

 Reserving the right to consider any past performance information seems not only the "imperative" per the FAR as well as something easily placed in a solicitation and easily documented even if the CO can't get the someone to give him something.

[joel hoffman]

If the requiring activity strongly feels and can justify why past performance is an important discriminator, then the contracting office and the lawyers should do their job and find a way to support it. It isn’t impossible to evaluate past performance as a discriminator.