the lectern banner

By Steve Kelman

Blog archive

Is past performance working better than we thought?

man graphs performance

Does the government's past performance evaluation system help the government during post-award contract management in terms of performance and/or contract cost more than is often imagined?

I don't have nearly enough information to answer that question with any certainty, but over the past few months I have picked up a few pieces of information suggesting this may be true.

In January, while the Harvard Kennedy School had a group of GS-15's in town for a few weeks for an executive education program, I had a long lunch one day with four IT program managers, from both military and civilian agencies, to discuss post-award contract management. It definitely caught my attention when one of the four stated that mentioning to a contractor that some performance problem would threaten their past performance evaluation was generally enough to change the contractor's behavior. The three others around the table agreed.

I didn't think about this again until Dee Lee, in our conversation about moving from government to industry, discussed the same phenomenon, but in a negative way.

The threat of a bad past performance evaluation could be used by the government, she worried, to force industry to "bend" (her word choice) to the government's wishes even when what the government was asking was inequitable. Her specific example involved pressuring the contractor to accept no additional fee on a contract mod. When she raised this with me, I was suddenly reminded of something an industry person had told me last year to the same effect – past performance evaluations could illegitimately be used to deprive the contractor of a right or benefit to which the firm was entitled.

I am in no position to judge the justice of such complaints from industry, or to judge how often the government uses past performance in an illegitimate way. The interesting fact is the confluence of these stories -- keeping in mind that we have a very small sample size here, making it really hard to generalize -- around the idea that past performance is a meaningful tool for the government.

The paradox here is that many government folks involved in source selection state that past performance is seldom a differentiator. So how can it affect contractor behavior even without being a source selection differentiator? Before these recent conversations, I assumed (as I think most would) that past performance cannot be an effective tool unless it actually affects the outcome of future awards.

Having thought about it, I have now concluded this is not necessarily true. Let's say that a contractor changes its behavior on a current contract to avoid a bad past performance rating. When that changes, the firm then gets a good rating. If contractors in general act that way, the average past performance rating for contractors will go up. Some of the good ratings would have occurred without the government's threat, others only because of the government's threat.

Under this scenario, differentiation among past performance ratings goes down, and it thus becomes less likely that past performance will be a differentiator for future contract source selections. But even without any differentiation that can be applied for future source selection, contractors are doing a better job on current contracts to satisfy their government customer than if there were no past performance system. They have a clear incentive to improve their performance, even if it ends up not being a differentiator for future source selections. For if they had not changed their behavior, their rating would have been worse, and those poor marks might then have become a differentiator for future awards.

Posted by Steve Kelman on Feb 22, 2016 at 2:14 PM


Cyber. Covered.

Government Cyber Insider tracks the technologies, policies, threats and emerging solutions that shape the cybersecurity landscape.

Featured

Reader comments

Thu, Mar 10, 2016

There was a time when the contractors and government clients were true partners in achieving the objectives of the projects. Today that partnership has been replaced with an abusive and adversarial relationship especially as the less experienced millennials are replacing the baby boomers. Govt. managers are wielding power not common business sense in getting the projects completed. There is always a give and take, a conversation is necessary because there are many unanticipated situations that arise during the course of the project which merit open and fair discussions between the two parties. Especially in light of the fact that the requirements are not well written in the SOWs, clients are not well versed in the development of complex solutions, turn over and the list goes on. Unless we go back to a partnership there will be challenges with past perf ratings and they will be used as tools to make the contractors bend. Additionally, CPARS are not a fair system because they are one sided and god forbid if the vendor challenges them - it's a kiss of death.

Wed, Feb 24, 2016 Jaime Gracia Washington, D.C.

I don’t generally think this issue has changed, but using the threat of negative past performance I believe has more weight in this current hyper-competitive environment. The preference should be on performance metrics, but in lieu of those, certainly past performance is a legitimate stick. I have also seen an alarming increase of contractors willing to allow scope creep, at their expense, to make federal customers happy. Telling a federal customer “no” is generally never a good idea, but possibly fatal when contract renewal time comes around. Contractors are more than happy to bend over backwards, and frankly they should. It is good business. However, the past performance threat should not be used as an excuse by federal managers to push the envelope for what are tantamount to out-of-scope requests, or through clever or just outright abusive self-serving interpretations of contracts. I have also experienced an alarming increase in that behavior in this environment of “Do More With Less”.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group