Past Performance Database: Building Your Competitive Edge in GovCon
Past performance is often the deciding factor in source selection. Most contractors rely on scattered documents and tribal knowledge. Here's how to build a searchable, compliant past performance database.
Cabrillo Club
Editorial Team · February 5, 2026

In federal procurement, past performance isn't just a requirement—it's often the discriminator between technically acceptable proposals. Yet most contractors manage past performance through scattered Word documents, email threads, and the memories of senior staff who might leave next quarter.
This article supports our Winning Federal Contracts guide which covers the full competitive strategy for GovCon.
The Past Performance Problem
When an RFP drops with a 30-day response window, your team scrambles to find relevant past performance. Common problems:
- Scattered sources: Past performance data lives in CPARS, SharePoint, email archives, CRM notes, and people's heads
- No searchability: You can't query 'show me all cybersecurity contracts over $5M with DoD agencies'
- Version control failures: Multiple versions of past performance narratives exist, and nobody knows which is current
- Institutional memory loss: When key staff leave, their knowledge of contract nuances leaves with them
Database Structure
An effective past performance database captures structured data at the contract level:
Core Fields
- Contract number, title, and description
- Client agency, division, and contracting officer
- Contract value (total and annual)
- Period of performance (start, end, options)
- NAICS codes, PSC codes, contract vehicle
Performance Data
- CPARS ratings (quality, schedule, cost, management, small business)
- Quantified outcomes (SLA achievement, cost savings, on-time delivery rates)
- Technical capabilities demonstrated (technologies, methodologies, clearance levels)
- Team size and key personnel
Reusable Narratives
- Standard past performance write-up (250-500 words)
- Extended narrative with technical depth (1000+ words)
- Challenge/approach/result stories for each major contract
Compliance Considerations
Your past performance database contains CUI: contract values, technical approaches, performance metrics, client agency details. This means:
- The database must reside within your CMMC boundary
- Access controls must restrict visibility to authorized proposal team members
- If you use AI to search or generate narratives from past performance, RAG isolation is required
- Retention policies must follow CMMC data retention requirements
AI-Powered Past Performance
The real power of a structured past performance database is enabling AI-assisted proposal writing:
- Semantic search: 'Find contracts where we demonstrated cybersecurity incident response for DoD' returns ranked results
- Narrative generation: Draft past performance sections tailored to specific RFP evaluation criteria
- Gap analysis: Identify areas where your past performance is thin and plan teaming arrangements accordingly
All AI processing must comply with CMMC requirements. See our compliant AI proposal guide for the technical architecture.
How ready are you for CMMC?
Take our free readiness assessment. 10 questions, instant results, no email required until you want your report.
Check Your CMMC ReadinessCabrillo Club
Editorial Team
Cabrillo Club helps government contractors win more contracts with AI-powered proposal automation and compliance solutions.


