| name | past-performance-questionnaire |
| title | Past Performance Questionnaire |
| description | Drafts a Past Performance Questionnaire for evaluating legal service providers or contractors in government contract contexts. Trigger when the user needs vendor evaluation instruments, contractor performance reviews, past performance assessments, or due diligence questionnaires aligned with FAR requirements. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/past-performance-questionnaire |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | government-contracts |
| language | en |
| tags | ["checklist","drafting"] |
Past Performance Questionnaire
Produces a structured, legally defensible evaluation instrument for assessing historical performance of legal service providers or contractors, optimized for government procurement and regulatory compliance.
Quick Start
Gather before drafting:
- Evaluated entity — firm/contractor name, contract or engagement reference numbers
- Engagement scope — matter type, jurisdiction, timeframe, budget
- Evaluation purpose — procurement decision, renewal review, compliance audit
- Prior performance records — past evaluations, deliverable logs, correspondence
- Regulatory framework — FAR Part 42.15 for federal contracts, agency supplements, or org policy
Questionnaire Sections
1. Respondent Information
Collect in a structured form block:
- Full legal name, title/role, organization
- Contact info (email, phone)
- Relationship to evaluated entity (client, co-counsel, subcontractor, COR, etc.)
- Duration of professional relationship
- Professional credentials / bar number (if attorney)
2. Engagement Details
- Contract/matter number
- Matter type (litigation, transactional, regulatory, advisory)
- Jurisdiction(s) and period of performance (start/end)
- Contract value/budget (original and final)
- Scope of work summary (2–3 sentences)
- Key deliverables, final disposition/outcome
- Subcontractors involved (if applicable)
3. Performance Rating Matrix
Use a 5-point scale with behavioral anchors:
| Rating | Definition |
|---|
| 5 — Exceptional | Exceeded requirements; zero deficiencies; model for others |
| 4 — Very Good | Exceeded some requirements; minor deficiencies promptly corrected |
| 3 — Satisfactory | Met requirements; deficiencies did not impact outcomes |
| 2 — Marginal | Did not meet some requirements; deficiencies required intervention |
| 1 — Unsatisfactory | Failed to meet requirements; material deficiencies |
Rate each dimension (numeric score + minimum 2-sentence narrative):
- Quality of legal work product (accuracy, thoroughness, legal soundness)
