Most past performance write-ups describe what a contractor did. The stronger ones also show how well it was done, with results an evaluator can check. In the fourth quarter, when proposals are written quickly and from library content, it is tempting to reach for familiar phrases such as “exceeded expectations” or “delivered significant savings.” Those phrases are easy to write and easy to ignore. Specific, verifiable results are harder to assemble, which is exactly why they stand out.
What makes a result credible
A credible result has three qualities. It is specific: it names a measure, a time period and a level of performance. It is attributable: it describes what your firm did, not what a program achieved with many contributors. And it is verifiable: someone outside your company, usually the customer, could confirm it. If a reference would hesitate or disagree when asked about a claim, the claim does not belong in the write-up.
Where good metrics come from
Look first at the records the contract itself produced. Useful sources include:
- Performance standards in the performance work statement and the reports that show whether you met them
- Delivery records showing on-time completion of orders or milestones
- Acceptance records, such as deliverables accepted without rework
- Government evaluations, including ratings and narrative comments you received in CPARS
- Customer correspondence acknowledging an improvement or a problem solved
- Your own operational data, such as response times or backlog reduction, if it can be documented
Capture these while the contract is active. Months later, the people and records needed to support a result may be hard to find.
Presenting results in a write-up
A simple pattern works well: state the situation, what you did and the result, with its source. For example, a write-up might explain that the contract’s standard required a certain response time, describe the staffing or process change your team introduced, and report the response times recorded in the monthly status reports the government accepted. The details will differ for every contract, but the structure lets an evaluator see cause and effect.
- Tie each result to a requirement in the current solicitation, so its relevance is clear.
- Use the customer’s terms and measures rather than internal jargon.
- Prefer a few strong results to a long list of weak ones.
- Keep numbers consistent across the proposal, your capability statement and what your references will say.
Accuracy is not optional
A past performance volume is a representation to the government. Overstating results, claiming credit for a teammate’s work or presenting estimates as measurements can damage your credibility with evaluators and, in serious cases, create legal exposure for false statements. When a result is approximate, say so. When your firm was a subcontractor, describe your portion. When a contract had problems, do not hide them; address them honestly, because evaluators may learn of them from other sources anyway.
Good results speak for themselves only when they are written down clearly and backed by records. Build that habit on every contract you perform, and your write-ups will be ready when the next solicitation arrives. The FAR’s past performance evaluation rules are in Part 15 at acquisition.gov.