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:

Evaluated entity — firm/contractor name, contract or engagement reference numbers
Engagement scope — matter type, jurisdiction, timeframe, budget
Evaluation purpose — procurement decision, renewal review, compliance audit
Prior performance records — past evaluations, deliverable logs, correspondence
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:

Strengths — specific examples of performance exceeding expectations
Deficiencies — performance issues, corrective actions taken, and outcomes
Relevance — comparability of this engagement to prospective scope in complexity and subject matter
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