past-performance-questionnaire

# Past Performance Questionnaire

Produces a structured, legally defensible evaluation instrument for assessing historical performance of legal service providers or contractors, optimized for government procurement and regulatory compliance.

## Quick Start

Gather before drafting:

1. **Evaluated entity** — firm/contractor name, contract or engagement reference numbers
2. **Engagement scope** — matter type, jurisdiction, timeframe, budget
3. **Evaluation purpose** — procurement decision, renewal review, compliance audit
4. **Prior performance records** — past evaluations, deliverable logs, correspondence
5. **Regulatory framework** — FAR Part 42.15 for federal contracts, agency supplements, or org policy

## Questionnaire Sections

### 1. Respondent Information

Collect in a structured form block:

- Full legal name, title/role, organization
- Contact info (email, phone)
- Relationship to evaluated entity (client, co-counsel, subcontractor, COR, etc.)
- Duration of professional relationship
- Professional credentials / bar number (if attorney)

### 2. Engagement Details

- Contract/matter number
- Matter type (litigation, transactional, regulatory, advisory)
- Jurisdiction(s) and period of performance (start/end)
- Contract value/budget (original and final)
- Scope of work summary (2–3 sentences)
- Key deliverables, final disposition/outcome
- Subcontractors involved (if applicable)

### 3. Performance Rating Matrix

Use a 5-point scale with behavioral anchors:

| Rating | Definition |
|---|---|
| 5 — Exceptional | Exceeded requirements; zero deficiencies; model for others |
| 4 — Very Good | Exceeded some requirements; minor deficiencies promptly corrected |
| 3 — Satisfactory | Met requirements; deficiencies did not impact outcomes |
| 2 — Marginal | Did not meet some requirements; deficiencies required intervention |
| 1 — Unsatisfactory | Failed to meet requirements; material deficiencies |

**Rate each dimension** (numeric score + minimum 2-sentence narrative):

- Quality of legal work product (accuracy, thoroughness, legal soundness)
- Timeliness (deadline adherence, responsiveness)
- Budget management (cost control, billing transparency, change orders)
- Communication (clarity, frequency, issue escalation)
- Professional conduct (ethics, confidentiality, conflicts management)
- Staffing/resource management (qualified personnel, continuity)
- Problem resolution (issue identification, corrective action, adaptability)
- Regulatory/compliance adherence (applicable rules, reporting, documentation)

### 4. Qualitative Assessment

Include four open-ended prompts:

1. **Strengths** — specific examples of performance exceeding expectations
2. **Deficiencies** — performance issues, corrective actions taken, and outcomes
3. **Relevance** — comparability of this engagement to prospective scope in complexity and subject matter
4. **Rehire** — whether respondent would engage this provider again for similar work, with rationale

### 5. Supporting Documentation

Request as applicable:

- Representative work samples (redacted as needed)
- Performance metrics or scorecards
- Correspondence documenting issues or commendations
- Third-party references with contact authorization
- Final deliverable acceptance records

Include instruction: "Redact privileged, classified, or proprietary information. Identify documents subject to protective order or confidentiality agreement."

### 6. Certification and Signature

Include a certification block with:

- Truth and accuracy attestation
- Consequence disclosure for false/misleading statements (per applicable policy)
- Authorization limiting use to stated evaluation purpose
- Signature, printed name, title, and date fields

For electronic submissions, add E-SIGN Act / UETA compliance language and specify acceptable signature methods.

## Pitfalls and Checks

- **FAR alignment**: For federal procurements, verify compliance with FAR 42.1503 (evaluation standards) and FAR 15.305(a)(2) (source selection) — confirm current regulatory text before finalizing
- **Objectivity**: Frame prompts neutrally; require specific examples for any rating above 4 or below 3
- **Bias mitigation**: Use identical scales and prompts across all respondents for the same evaluation
- **Privilege protection**: Instruct respondents not to disclose attorney-client privileged communications; include a carve-out disclaimer
- **Confidentiality**: Mark completed questionnaires "Source Selection Sensitive" for government use; include handling instructions
- **Recency**: Flag engagements older than 3 years; note reduced relevance per standard practice
- **Data retention**: Specify retention period per agency policy or organizational requirements