Contractors continue to be concerned about the impact that the filing of protests or claims will have on their past performance evaluations in negotiated procurements. While it is never a good idea to file a frivolous protest or claim, it is improper for procurement officials to downgrade past performance evaluations simply because a contractor has exercised a right afforded by law and regulation. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget issued a Memorandum for Senior Procurement Executives on April 1, 2002, and stated that “. . . the filing of protests, the filing of claims, or the use of ADR, must not be considered by an agency in either past performance evaluations or source selection decisions.” The Memorandum went on to provide that contractors may not be given “downgraded past performance evaluations for availing themselves of their rights by filing protests and claims or for deciding not to use ADR; and Contractors may not be given more positive past performance evaluations for refraining from filing protests and claims or for agreeing to use ADR.”
The Under Secretary of Defense endorsed the Memorandum and circulated it on December 16, 2002. The cover letter stated that “We should continue to work with our contractors to avoid or minimize unnecessary protests and claims and encourage the use of ADR, where appropriate, while not discouraging contractors from availing themselves of the rights provided to them by law. The policy embodied in the Memorandum has not changed and contractors should challenge any past performance evaluation that is downgraded because of previous protests or claims. It must be recognized, moreover, that the reason for a lower than expected evaluation may not always be revealed during a debriefing. If a contractor suspects that an inappropriate downgrading has occurred, the only way to prove it may be to file a protest so that the agency’s Administrative Record may be reviewed by the protester’s attorney. (Note: In a negotiated procurement, the Administrative Record is almost always subject to a Protective Order that prohibits disclosure of the information to anyone other than the protester’s attorney).
Michael Payne is a Partner and is the Chairman of the firm’s Federal Practice Group.