Performance Evaluations
In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations1, agencies shall prepare an evaluation of contractor performance for each contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold2 at the time the work under the contract is completed. This requirement does not mean that all contractors are treated equally; rather, contractors must be treated fairly and unbiased.
In addition, there is a firm obligation that the government and the contractor deal with each other in good faith and fair dealings.3 This general obligation of good faith in the performance and enforcement of the contract is generally enforced on both parties. The government encourages an attitude of cooperation by contractors with the government by using past performance
evaluations that are fair and unbiased.
The concept of “good faith” emphasizes faithfulness to an agreed common purpose and consistency with the justified expectations of the other party.4 This philosophy excludes “bad faith.” Therefore, “subterfuges and evasions violate the obligation of good faith in performance even though the actor believes his conduct to be justified.”5
It is well established that the government, in its “contracting capacity”, is bound by the obligation of good faith in contracting to the same extent as the contractor. The obligation to good faith in contracting is generally for the benefit of both parties.
BLR Group of America, Inc. (“BLR”) provides aviation support services to customers. They were awarded a contract from the Air Force (“AF”) for air traffic management systems. BLR hired a subcontractor to be its chief engineer. After two months, BLR released the subcontractor for what it deemed an inappropriate relationship with the lead AF Quality Assurance Person (“QAP”). Thereafter, the lead QAP wholly failed to cooperate with BLR and actively hindered performance. A few months later, the AF terminated the contract for convenience.
BLR stated that the AF was required to perform an evaluation of its ...
1 | 2 | 3
