Relevant Past Performance and its Tie to Material Past Performance

In cFocus Software, B-422970 (December 2024), the GAO again revisited what is “relevant” to past performance in contract comparison during an agency evaluation of past performance. The GAO found the EPA was reasonable in its evaluation of relevancy and consistent with the terms of solicitation. Speaking directly to the relevant piece of the evaluation, the GAO agreed with the agency that the cFocus’s experience was not relevant because it was not the same type of contract—similar in scope—to be considered relevant to the current evaluation.

cFocus seems to agree with GOVCIO, LLC (2024). Relevancy of past performance considered in best value decision and included in the agency’s solicitation. This looked at a task order on an IDIQ. It defined relevancy as follows: “Relevancy is defined as a contract that is similar in size and scope of the requirements in the solicitation.” It went on to state  “Similar in size means the total price of the contract, the number of staff, the number of users served, the number of locations served, etc. Scope compares how well the requirements in the PWS align with those of the past performance referenced. Quality is defined as performance which is satisfactory or better and will be used to assess the risk associated with successful contract performance” Further, “determinations of recency and relevancy would not be separately rated, and that for a reference to be considered it must be both recent and relevant.” (Emphasis added).

This case highlights the importance of clearly defining the criteria for relevancy in past performance evaluations. The GAO’s emphasis on the alignment of contracts in terms of size and scope is critical for agencies to ensure fair and consistent evaluations. Understanding these nuances can help organizations better prepare their proposals and respond to solicitations effectively.