Can anyone think of a reason why past performance would not be considered in a contract award? I always thought that price and past performance was automatically always an evaluation factor and then you added whatever other factors might pertain to the solicitation. Today I saw a solicitation for a service by the Air Force in FBO where it plainly stated that past performance was not a factor and to make it clearer they used italics to state that it would not be evaluated and the only evaluation criteria would be price. What could the protest implications be? There are a number of cases where the government was protested for not adequately evaluating past performance but what if you totally ignore the factor?

One possibility is they used FAR 15.304( c)(3)(iii), which says "Past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition." See also FAR 15.101-2, Lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.

Can you provide a link to the solicitation? Is this an invitation for bids or a request for proposals?

It is possible, I just have never seen a solicitation where this was not a factor. I did go back and read FAR 15.304. Thank you.

Joel,

It was posted as an RFQ for commercial items. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=f31f058b44e5b2a32ba74b9ed46945ee&tab=core&_cview=1

It is possible, I just have never seen a solicitation where this was not a factor.

The government sends out thousands of solicitations each year. What proportion of them do you see?

The Government will not evaluate past performance in making its best value decision.

Once the contracting officer (or other source selection official) makes the selection based on the evaluation factors, then the contracting officer will have to make a responsibility determination of the apparently successful offeror. Past performance could play in that responsibility determination -- but it will be a YES/NO or GO/NO GO decision.

Maybe I'm just being picky, but when I see a solicitation number that has "X's" in Instrument Type and in the Serial Number (12-X-XXXX); I'm left with the impression that the CS's is new and he's operating without any oversight.

There may be flaws in the solicitation but it appears that the answer to the question of why no past performance relates to “simplified acquisition” and FAR Part 13 (13.106-2((1)) and not FAR Part 15. Noting this based on references in previous posts in the thread to Part 15 and/or terminology used in Part 15. Dare I say it is refershing to see where a contracting person took to heart "simplified"!

As for the use of “X"’s I am not too quick to judge based on a look at FBO and the solicitations that do use. Could be a system thing that they are working around to get services to folks?

They're probably not evaluating past performance because quoters must be GSA certified. See the PWS, paragraph 1.0. GSA has a safe and vault program. Many locksmiths advertise themselves as being "GSA certified."

As for the use of “X"’s I am not too quick to judge based on a look at FBO and the solicitations that do use. Could be a system thing that they are working around to get services to folks?

It is end of year, what is the point of putting a serial number into it when they would have to change it on Monday when the new FY starts? They could of thrown in the instrument type, but the serial number would of been pointless.

It is end of year, what is the point of putting a serial number into it when they would have to change it on Monday when the new FY starts? They could of thrown in the instrument type, but the serial number would of been pointless.

Why would they change the solicitation number just because it's a new FY?