Past performance evaluation is the government's method for predicting whether an offeror will successfully perform a proposed contract based on how it has performed on previous contracts. FAR 15.305(a)(2) requires the evaluation of past performance as part of any source selection conducted under FAR Part 15, unless the contracting officer documents in the acquisition plan why it is not an appropriate factor.

The evaluation looks at three distinct aspects of an offeror's performance record: recency (how recent the contracts are), relevancy (how similar those contracts are to the current requirement), and quality (how well the contractor actually performed). All three must be assessed. A contractor that performed excellent work ten years ago on a very different type of contract does not tell you much about how they will perform on your requirement today.

The end product of a past performance evaluation is a performance confidence assessment. This is not a rating of how "good" the contractor is in the abstract. It is a prediction of how likely the contractor is to successfully perform the specific work being solicited, based on the evidence in their record.

Recency refers to how current the past performance information is. The solicitation should define what "recent" means. A common standard is contracts performed within the last three to five years, though the right window depends on the industry. Fast-moving IT services may warrant a three-year window. Construction, where project lifecycles are longer, might justify six years. Whatever you choose, state it in Section L so offerors know what to submit and evaluators know what to consider.

Relevancy measures how similar the prior contracts are to the work being solicited. The DoD Source Selection Procedures (August 2022) define four relevancy ratings:

Relevancy is not binary. An offeror might submit five contracts: two that are Very Relevant, one Relevant, and two Somewhat Relevant. The evaluation team assesses each contract reference individually, then uses the full picture to inform the overall confidence assessment.

Quality is the actual performance record on those contracts. How well did the contractor do the work? Were there schedule delays, cost overruns, or quality deficiencies? Did the contractor receive favorable or unfavorable CPARS ratings? Quality is drawn from the performance data sources described in the next section.

Past performance data comes from several sources. The evaluation team should use more than one.

CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) is the primary government-wide database for contractor performance evaluations. Contracting officers and CORs are required to complete CPARS evaluations for contracts meeting certain dollar thresholds. CPARS ratings cover multiple assessment areas: quality of product/service, schedule, cost control (on cost-type contracts), management/business relations, and sometimes small business subcontracting. Each area receives a rating from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. CPARS data is available to evaluation teams through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

Past Performance Questionnaires are sent by the contracting office directly to the references identified in the offeror's proposal. A questionnaire asks the customer point of contact to rate the contractor's performance on specific aspects of the work, using the rating scale defined in the solicitation. Questionnaires capture information that CPARS may not, particularly for contracts below CPARS reporting thresholds or for commercial customers. More on how to structure questionnaires is covered in Section 5 below.

FAPIIS (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System) contains information on terminations for cause or default, deficiency findings, non-responsibility determinations, and administrative agreements. It is a responsibility check as much as a performance check. Contracting officers are required to review FAPIIS before award per FAR 9.104-6.

eSRS (Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System) tracks small business subcontracting plan compliance. If the solicitation includes a small business subcontracting evaluation factor, eSRS data shows whether the offeror has met its subcontracting goals on prior contracts.

Interviews with project managers, CORs, and fee determining officials provide context that structured ratings cannot. A COR who managed a contractor's day-to-day performance can explain whether a "Satisfactory" CPARS rating reflected steady performance or a troubled contract that was eventually brought under control. Interviews are optional but useful, particularly when CPARS data alone is inconclusive.

After collecting and reviewing all past performance information, the evaluation team assigns a performance confidence assessment rating. This is the final judgment about the government's confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the solicited work. The DoD Source Selection Procedures define five ratings:

The confidence assessment is not a simple average of individual CPARS ratings. It is an integrated judgment that considers the relevancy of each reference, the recency of the performance, the quality ratings and narratives, and any trends (improving or declining). An offeror with two Very Relevant contracts rated "Very Good" and one Somewhat Relevant contract rated "Satisfactory" might reasonably receive Substantial Confidence if the relevant work was recent and directly comparable.

A past performance questionnaire is a form the contracting office sends to customer points of contact, asking them to rate and describe a contractor's performance. The government is not limited to the references the offeror provides in its proposal. The evaluation team can send questionnaires to any known customer, and can use CPARS, FAPIIS, and other government sources to identify contracts the offeror did not list. Questionnaires are particularly valuable when CPARS data is unavailable or incomplete.

The questionnaire should be structured around the same rating scale used in Section M. If your solicitation uses the DoD confidence assessment ratings, the questionnaire should use the CPARS rating scale (Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory) for individual assessment areas, because that is the scale the references are accustomed to. The evaluation team then takes the questionnaire results, along with CPARS data and any other sources, and synthesizes them into the overall confidence assessment.

A typical questionnaire covers these areas:

• Quality of Product/Service: Did the contractor deliver work that met the contract requirements? Were there quality deficiencies or rework?
• Schedule: Did the contractor meet delivery dates and milestones? Were there delays, and if so, were they caused by the contractor?
• Cost Control (cost-type contracts): Did the contractor manage costs within the estimated/ceiling amounts? Were there unexplained cost growth issues?
• Management/Business Relations: Was the contractor responsive to government direction? Did they communicate proactively about issues? Was the working relationship professional?
• Utilization of Small Business (if applicable): Did the contractor meet its small business subcontracting plan goals?

Each area should include both a rating selection and a narrative space. The narrative is often more useful than the rating itself, because it gives evaluators context about what went well or poorly and whether any problems were the contractor's fault.

The solicitation must tell offerors exactly what past performance information to submit (Section L) and how the government will evaluate it (Section M). The two must align. Below are sample language blocks for a best value tradeoff.

When the source selection method is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable, the past performance evaluation changes significantly. Under LPTA there is no tradeoff, so past performance is not rated on a relative scale. Instead, it functions as a pass/fail gate.

The typical approach is to evaluate past performance as Acceptable or Unacceptable. An offeror passes the past performance gate if its confidence assessment is Satisfactory Confidence or better. An offeror with Neutral Confidence (no record) also passes, consistent with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). An offeror with Limited Confidence or No Confidence fails.

Even though the rating is pass/fail, the evaluation team still goes through the same process: assessing relevancy of each contract, reviewing CPARS and questionnaire data, and forming a confidence assessment. The difference is that under LPTA, the confidence assessment is only used to determine pass or fail, not to differentiate between offerors.

This means an Exceptional CPARS record is worth exactly the same as a Satisfactory one. A contractor with Substantial Confidence and a contractor with Satisfactory Confidence both pass, and neither has any advantage over the other. There is no tradeoff. You cannot award to a higher-priced offeror because their past performance is stronger. Once past performance clears the gate, price drives the winner.

The past performance evaluation must be documented thoroughly enough that anyone reviewing the record (including a GAO attorney reviewing a protest) can understand how the evaluation team arrived at its confidence assessment. The documentation should address every contract reference the offeror submitted, state the relevancy determination for each, summarize the quality information obtained, and explain how those inputs led to the overall rating.

At minimum, the evaluation narrative for each offeror should include:

• A list of each contract reference with its relevancy rating and the basis for that rating
• A summary of the CPARS data, questionnaire responses, and any other sources reviewed
• Identification of any performance trends (improving, declining, or consistent)
• The overall performance confidence assessment rating with a clear rationale connecting the evidence to the rating definition
• If adverse information was found, documentation that the offeror was notified and given an opportunity to respond, and a summary of their response