Every contractor that performs long enough will have a contract that did not go as planned: a late delivery, a staffing gap, a quality issue that took months to fix. When that contract is one of your most relevant references, you face a choice about how to present it. Hiding the problem rarely works, because evaluators can draw on government evaluations and other sources beyond what you submit. Addressing it directly, with evidence of what you learned, often works better than hoping no one notices.
What the FAR says about problems and corrective actions
The FAR’s past performance rules direct that solicitations authorize offerors to provide information on problems encountered on the contracts they identify and the corrective actions they took. Evaluators are also told to consider the currency and relevance of information, its source and context, and general trends in a contractor’s performance. A trend of improvement after a difficult start is information an evaluator can weigh.
The rules also provide some protection. In negotiated procurements, when the government holds adverse past performance information on which an offeror has not had a prior opportunity to comment, the FAR provides for the offeror to address it in certain exchanges, such as clarifications or discussions. That is no substitute for addressing a known problem in the proposal itself.
How to write about a problem
- Acknowledge it plainly. State what happened in a sentence or two, without euphemism.
- Explain the cause without blaming the customer. Describe the root cause your firm identified, even if outside factors contributed.
- Describe the corrective actions. Be specific: a staffing change, a new quality check, a revised process, added management attention.
- Show the results. Cite what changed afterward, such as later deliveries on time or improved ratings in subsequent evaluations.
- Connect it to the new work. Explain how the lessons are built into your approach for this requirement.
Keep the tone factual. A defensive or lengthy explanation can draw more attention to the problem than it deserves, while a short, candid account suggests a firm that manages difficulty well.
Deciding whether to cite the contract
Sometimes the better choice is to cite a different reference. If the troubled contract is less relevant than others you could submit, choose the stronger ones. If it is your most relevant work, citing it with a candid explanation may be wiser than omitting it, especially if the agency is likely to see the government’s evaluation anyway. Consider, too, whether the problem has been addressed in the official record. If you responded to a government evaluation at the time, your comments may already be part of it.
Prevent the next one
The most useful habit is to document corrective actions while you are taking them, with dates, the changes made and the results observed. That record helps you respond to a government evaluation, supports future proposals and keeps the lessons from fading. Evaluators do not expect perfection. They look for evidence that a contractor recognizes problems early and fixes them. The FAR’s past performance evaluation provisions are in Part 15 at acquisition.gov.