What is past performance?

Past performance refers to documented evidence of successful prior engagements used to demonstrate capability and reduce buyer risk in competitive procurements. For consulting firms, past performance includes client references, case studies, performance metrics, and testimonials. In government contracting, past performance is a formal evaluation criterion with specific documentation requirements. Strong past performance often outweighs price considerations in consulting procurements.

Key characteristics

• Documents successful delivery of similar scope/scale engagements

• Includes client references willing to speak to evaluators

• Quantifies outcomes and impact where possible (ROI, savings, improvements)

• In government contracting, it is formally evaluated using questionnaires (CPARS)

• More recent and more relevant past performance carries greater weight

• Lack of past performance is often disqualifying for major procurements

Why it matters for service firms

Past performance reduces buyer perceived risk and demonstrates proven capability. A consulting firm bidding on a $500,000 engagement competes differently depending on its past performance. With 5 similar successful engagements and referenceable clients, the firm demonstrates low risk. Without relevant past performance, even a superior technical approach may lose to competitors with proven track records. Systematically documenting and cultivating past performance is essential for sustainable business development.

Real-world example

Keystone Consulting builds a systematic past performance program. For every engagement over $50,000, they: document scope, outcomes, and metrics within 30 days of completion; request LinkedIn recommendations from client contacts; develop sanitized case studies for marketing; and maintain reference relationships with annual check-ins. After 3 years, they have 25 documented examples of past performance across 6 service areas. When competing for a $400,000 state government contract, they provide 4 directly relevant references. Competitors offer 1-2 weaker references. Keystone wins despite being 8% higher on price, with evaluation comments noting 'superior demonstrated capability and low performance risk.'