Holding Government Contractors Accountable

Several articles have recently been published advocating holding contractors more accountable for past performance. I've been around RFPs and proposals since 1974 and I don't believe I've seen one that didn't ask for some sort of past performance data. Contractor's are asked to provide evidence of their ability to complete the anticipated contract by submitting a synopsis of some number of contracts over some period of time that relate to the anticipated contract as an indicator of the contractor's ability to perform. There have even been questionnaires that have to be sent to reference customers and returned to the contracting officer by the time the proposal's submitted. Isn't this enough?Not only is it not enough but it's inadequate and will never provide the desired results.

Questionnaires are a pain in the behind of every reference. Most companies tend to use the same set of references for every proposal. Has anyone ever sent a questionnaire to an official where there was a performance problem and what happens to the official's other work? Citations that the contractor picks wouldn't be biased would they? You just know that everyone is going to confess past indiscretions.

This isn't a problem whose solution depends strictly on contractor action. The government bares partial responsibility for both the problem and the solution. Most evaluation criteria puts past performance well below every other factor and I've never been told how pass performance is scored. Is it pass/fail; on what basis? Is it numerically scored; what separates a score of 99 from 100 and what difference does it make?

One way of correcting the problem would be a database, available to source selection officials, containing quarterly (or annual) ratings for every contract. Would it make it any easier? Would past performance actually count for something? Would contractors ever really know how they're evaluated? It would sure be a step in the right direction.