Standardize Past Performance: A Good Idea?

Home Forums Acquisitions Standardize Past Performance: A Good Idea?

This topic contains 1 reply, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Mark Forman 7 years, 5 months ago.

  • Author
  • #169294

    Jaime Gracia

    A recent proposed rule by The Department of Defense, NASA and General Services Administration has been published that would require past-performance reports to include specific, standardized items to help agencies decide whether a contractor can be successful on a nee requirement.

    According to the proposed rule, the new standards would allow for a clear description of the contract, in hopes that agencies can compare apples to apples by standard evaluation factors for quality of product or service, cost control, timeliness, management or business relations and small business subcontracting efforts.

    Regretfully, the new rule is silent on ensuring that contracts are properly documented, and that these evaluations are completed in a timely manner.


    1) Is this a good idea?

    2) Does your organization have a standard set of past performance factors for evaluations on contractor performance?

    3) What needs to happen to ensure these evaluation criteria get not only updated, but actually used for source selections?

  • #169296

    Mark Forman

    This issue was hotly debated when we did the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and again with PPRS. The structure must allow for honest, objective, and timely ratings. CORs have to feel free to provide bad feedback without retribution from the vendor, and objective standards should help. People should also be able to provide context, as well as the vendor side of the story, where practicable. The standards should have a mechanism that inhibits gaming by either the govt or contractor.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.