FAR 12.203(a)

(2) Past performance. Past performance should be an important evaluation factor for award. Consider past performance information from a wide variety of sources both inside and outside the Government. This may include reviewing performance information reported to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, as well as other sources of information. For some commercial products or services, such as emerging technology, this should include consideration of commercial market experience. Contracting officers may consider an offeror’s experience as a subcontractor.

I was always led to believe that experience was separate from performance. Are they now one and the same?

Experience: What you have done?

Past Performance: How well did you do it?

Both involve looking in the past, but they ask different questions.

Past performance.

Is it how a company performed in fact or how it performed in opinion?

Are the star ratings that appear at Amazon for products factual. Are the based on common criteria?

59 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

Past performance.

Is it how a company performed in fact or how it performed in opinion?

Are the star ratings that appear at Amazon for products factual. Are the based on common criteria?

Assuming no overt corruptness on the part of the rater, does it matter whether a 5 star rating is fact or opinion?

3 hours ago, cdhames said:

Assuming no overt corruptness on the part of the rater, does it matter whether a 5 star rating is fact or opinion?

It does to me.

I value some persons' opinions more than others based on what I know about them.

I don't seek or accept opinions from just anyone. Do you?

7 hours ago, cdhames said:

commercial market experience.

Not completely off track. Thoughts.

The referenced citation is RFO not current FAR. I wonder what statutory authority demanded it?

I thought maybe there was correlation to FAR part 13, not RFO, which does reference experience but RFO 13 does not?

Based on this basic research I agree an interesting change in process advice no matter how anyone might explain it away.

18 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

Past performance.

Is it how a company performed in fact or how it performed in opinion?

Are the star ratings that appear at Amazon for products factual. Are the based on common criteria?

According to FAR 42.1501(a), Past performance information includes both the records of performance (facts) and ratings of performance (opinion). The ratings are based on common criteria in theory.

Amazon star ratings only tell us others' opinions. Comments may relate facts, but they are impractical to verify.

I was an early advocate of past performance as an evalution factor, urged that past performance and price were enough to select a contractor in many acquisitions, and wrote the language used in an RFP for a service that stated past performance and price as the only criteria. The GAO denied a protest against that source selection decision. That prompted the OFPP to issue a policy letter urging the use of past performance as an evaluation factor. That was not a new idea.

But the evaluation of past performance should entail a thorough investigation of a company, not the stupid (Yes! Stupid!) procedure of asking for references and seeking the references' unsubstantiated assertions and opinions.

There is no idea, no matter how promising, that some government contracting personnel won't underthink, underuse, overuse, misuse and compromise.

16 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

But the evaluation of past performance should entail a thorough investigation of a company, not the stupid (Yes! Stupid!) procedure of asking for references and seeking the references' unsubstantiated assertions and opinions.

There is no idea, no matter how promising, that some government contracting personnel won't underthink, underuse, overuse, misuse and compromise.

Past performance has the potential to be a very powerful and useful tool. However for the most part, it is meaningless. For one reason, it relies mostly on CPARS. While the concept of a governmentwide database of contractor performance seems good, in practice the application of ratings to individual contract selections doesn’t do much in differentiating sources. Less than 2% of contractors receive less than Satisfactory ratings.

Then there is the survey process. As someone whose opinion I greatly respect once described, you essentially ask in a solicitation for companies to give you information about their government “friends.” Then you sent a survey to their “friends!” Of course we wouldn’t think about calling up references or other sources we might find on our own and ask direct and pointed questions about how well they did.

We talk about the role of the contracting officer of the future and that of a business advisor. Shouldn’t the contracting officer be either leading the process to obtain useful marketplace past performance information on offerors and perhaps doing it themselves? That often produces some very enlightening information when you take the effort to research performance on just relying on CPARS and information from “friends.”

On 1/27/2026 at 2:29 PM, cdhames said:

FAR 12.203(a)

(2) Past performance. Past performance should be an important evaluation factor for award. Consider past performance information from a wide variety of sources both inside and outside the Government. This may include reviewing performance information reported to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, as well as other sources of information. For some commercial products or services, such as emerging technology, this should include consideration of commercial market experience. Contracting officers may consider an offeror’s experience as a subcontractor.

I was always led to believe that experience was separate from performance. Are they now one and the same?

As addressed by others, past performance and experience are distinct concepts in evaluation. However, your post is based on a misunderstanding. Before we consider past performance we must consider its relevance. This is what the bolded language is addressing. It's saying that for purposes of determining which past performance information is relevant, the Government should consider examples from the offeror's regular commercial dealings, and not limit consideration to the offeror's Government contracts (especially when the offeror likely wouldn't have any such contracts).

I reserved the right in solicitations to call references, when deemed necessary to confirm the quality of performance or an offeror’s role (specific experience) on claimed project experience. Those conversations could be very enlightening.

Occasionally, a reference would disagree with a firm’s claimed performance or extent of involvement on a cited project.

I also reserved the right of the government to contact or use other sources. Once, one member of my Source Selection Evaluation Board, an Air Force Captain, had less than satisfactory personal project experience with an offeror’s key personnel that were proposed for that source selection.

Edit: [formerfed] is correct. There was often (in my observation/experience) an aversion by many government contracting personnel to call references.

In fact, I’ve observed an aversion to telephone anyone, it seems. This isn't limited to contracting personnel.

Edited February 2Feb 2 by joel hoffman
I initially accredited a statement by formerfed to Vern.

58 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

I reserved the right in solicitations to call references, when deemed necessary to confirm the quality of performance or an offeror’s role (specific experience) on claimed project experience. Those conversations could be very enlightening.

Occasionally, a reference would disagree with a firm’s claimed performance or extent of involvement on a cited project.

I also reserved the right of the government to contact or use other sources. Once, one member of my Source Selection Evaluation Board, an Air Force Captain, had less than satisfactory personal project experience with an offeror’s key personnel that were proposed for that source selection.

I agree that speaking to and questioning references improves the quality of past performance evaluation over merely relying on CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaires. I would further suggest that practitioners state in the solicitation that unsupported assertions will receive less weight than supported assertions for evaluation purposes.

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

Vern is correct. There was often (in my observation/experience) an aversion by many government contracting personnel to call references.

I think Vern is actually suggesting to go beyond accepting the word of references and to seek out underlying performance data and metrics.

On 1/29/2026 at 8:20 AM, FrankJon said:

As addressed by others, past performance and experience are distinct concepts in evaluation. However, your post is based on a misunderstanding. Before we consider past performance we must consider its relevance. This is what the bolded language is addressing. It's saying that for purposes of determining which past performance information is relevant, the Government should consider examples from the offeror's regular commercial dealings, and not limit consideration to the offeror's Government contracts (especially when the offeror likely wouldn't have any such contracts).

I'm not sure relevance applies to this passage. It looks to be permissioning the consideration of experience, as performance. Outside of the RFO I'd agree with you.

On 1/27/2026 at 12:29 PM, cdhames said:

FAR 12.203(a)

(2) Past performance. Past performance should be an important evaluation factor for award. Consider past performance information from a wide variety of sources both inside and outside the Government. This may include reviewing performance information reported to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, as well as other sources of information. For some commercial products or services, such as emerging technology, this should include consideration of commercial market experience. Contracting officers may consider an offeror’s experience as a subcontractor.

I was always led to believe that experience was separate from performance. Are they now one and the same?

The answer to your question is no. I believe you have misinterpreted the regulation. It is neither saying nor suggesting that experience and past performance are the same. It is saying that when evaluating a commercial offeror's past performance, consider it's past performance in its work (its experience) as a subcontractor. That work, too, is relevant past performance.

I think the bold portion reflects two seperate thoughts - consider past performance in the commercial market and past performance as a subcontractor.

On 1/31/2026 at 12:06 PM, formerfed said:

I think the bold portion reflects two seperate thoughts - consider past performance in the commercial market and past performance as a subcontractor.

Yes. "Should" consider the former to be relevant PP, "may" consider the latter to be relevant PP.

On 1/31/2026 at 10:06 AM, formerfed said:

I think the bold portion reflects two seperate thoughts - consider past performance in the commercial market and past performance as a subcontractor.

Two thoughts, yes probably, but whose?

I dug a little deeper into my question posted earlier as to statutory authority. I believe this to be it - 41 USC 3307.

Interestingly no reference to "experience" in the statute and one reference to "past performance". For "past" it is this at (e)(5)(C) providing that guidance should setforth "the use of past performance of commercial products and sources as a factor in contract award decisions."

I think RFO wording at 12.203(a) misses the mark. While the statute wording is kind of goofy, "use of" is experience. Capturing the statutory intent in the RFO could have been better stated by having a paragraph (4) entitled "Experience" with wording something like "For commercial products or services, such as emerging technology, this should include consideration of any commercial market experience."

See the attached OFPP Policy Letter of April 15, 1994, Use of Past Performance Information in the Source Selection Process, 59 FR 18168-02. (Serious "professionals" study both the current rules and their history.)

1. Distinction between past performance and past experience. There is no uniformity in present agency practices with regard to distinguishing between past performance and past experience. Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably, in other instances they have different definitions. For purposes of the pilot program, OFPP is distinguishing between past performance and past experience. Past performance is viewed as relating to “quality” and how well a contractor performed. Past experience, in comparison, is viewed as pertaining to the types and amounts of work previously performed by a contractor.

Anyone who cannot understand, without regulatory "guidance", the distinction and relationship between (1) experience and (2) past performance — the distinction between (1) what a company has done and (2) how well they have done it — should seek work in another field of endeavor.

Use of Past Performance Information in the Source Selection Process.pdf

7 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

See the attached OFPP Policy Letter of April 15, 1994, "Use of Past Performance Information in the Source Selection Process," 59 FR 18168-02.

Anyone who cannot understand, without regulatory "guidance", the distinction and relationship between (1) experience and (2) past performance — the distinction between (1) what a company has done and (2) how well they have done it — should seek work in another field of endeavor.

Use of Past Performance Information in the Source Selection Process.pdf

I wholeheartedly agree with Vern!

Topics like this have been discussed for many years. See the attached 1996 (!) article from The Nash & Cibinic Report, "Selecting the Evaluation Factors in Best Value Procurement." It was written by Professor Nash.

What is sad is that the government does not provide its contracting personnel with either (1) the education nor (2) the training that they need to do their jobs well.

What is encouraging is that some people seek ways to get the education they need on their own. My greatest fear is that the government will drive such people out of its employ.

SELECTING THE EVALUATION FACTORS IN BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT.pdf

On 1/30/2026 at 6:54 AM, FrankJon said:

I agree that speaking to and questioning references improves the quality of past performance evaluation over merely relying on CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaires. I would further suggest that practitioners state in the solicitation that unsupported assertions will receive less weight than supported assertions for evaluation purposes.

I think Vern is actually suggesting to go beyond accepting the word of references and to seek out underlying performance data and metrics.

On 1/29/2026 at 9:22 AM, formerfed said:

Of course we wouldn’t think about calling up references or other sources we might find on our own and ask direct and pointed questions about how well they did.

I incorrectly attributed fotmerfed’s statement to Vern in my post when I said “Vern is correct. There was often (in my observation/experience) an aversion by many government contracting personnel to call references.” Thank you, FrankJon.

Edited February 2Feb 2 by joel hoffman

A thorough investigation of past performance should include a lot more than calling strangers and asking for opinions.

There is a world of organized business information out there if know how to find it, get access to it, and analyze it properly.

Selecting a contractor for a big, important job is like a merger or acquisition. The investigation should be a kind of due diligence.

Where are all you MBAs?

41 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

There is a world of organized business information out there if know how to find it, get access to it, and analyze it properly.

Vern - Are you speaking of information on specific projects or responsibility-type data? I actually happen to be in a situation in which I'm procuring a service for which years of objective performance data are available. My customer said, "Past performance (i.e., talking to references) isn't useful to us so we don't want to evaluate it," and I responded, "The data you're requesting IS the past performance!" It was a revelation for them. But I'm not sure how I would do something similar for most common services.

Can we flesh out an example? Let's say we're procuring IT Service Desk support services.

• We can ask other agencies and businesses how well the firm has performed similar work.

• We can look at the firm's underlying business data such as liquidity, bankruptcies, and terminations, which we would typically associate with contractor responsibility.

• What else can we look into to determine the offeror's success in performing the same or similar work?

@FrankJon

Just now, FrankJon said:

Are you speaking of information on specific projects or responsibility-type data?

There is no such distinct category of information as "responsibility-type data." There is information about a company. Some of it may be used determine responsibility or to evaluate past performance and experience.

Let's assume you are conducting an important and non-routine procurement for some long-term onsite service.

To start, there is more to past performance than customer opinions obtained at arms length. There are sales and profitability data, which can suggest how well the company is run and the demand for its services. And you can ask the offeror ask for a list of current customers to which the offeror is providing same or similar service at the scale as you require, select two or three, and instruct the offeror to ask those customers to let visit and speak face-to-face with customer managers receiving the service. Why sit in your office reading stuff when you can go to the source? You can check court records for litigation with customers, which might tell you something. You can check for press reports. You can check any number of other business databases.

24 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

@FrankJon

There is no such distinct category of information as "responsibility-type data." There is information about a company. Some of it may be used determine responsibility or to evaluate past performance and experience.

Let's assume you are conducting an important and non-routine procurement for some long-term onsite service.

To start, there is more to past performance than customer opinions obtained at arms length. There are sales and profitability data, which can suggest how well the company is run and the demand for its services. And you can ask the offeror for a list of current customers to which the offeror is providing same or similar service at the scale as you require, select two or three, and instruct the offeror to ask those customers to let visit and speak face-to-face with customer managers receiving the service. Why sit in your office reading stuff when you can go to the source? You can check court records for litigation with customers, which might tell you something. You can check for press reports. You can check any number of other business databases.

Thanks, Vern.