---

name: past-performance-questionnaire language: en description: Drafts a Past Performance Questionnaire for evaluating legal service providers or contractors in government contract contexts. Trigger when the user needs vendor evaluation instruments, contractor performance reviews, past performance assessments, or due diligence questionnaires aligned with FAR requirements. tags:

• checklist
• drafting
• regulatory

---

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