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