The SprintProposal developmentPursuit memoryCaptureGraphicsGraduationCompareAboutResultsLearnDoPricingWorkbenchSecurityFAQBook a call →
‹ frwrd.do

Past performance card

Proposal · relevance & proof

A single past-performance reference, structured so an evaluator can score its relevance fast and a writer can pull proof points from it into the technical volume. Reusable across pursuits; tuned per pursuit.

When you reach for it. Building the past-performance volume, and any time a win theme needs a proof point. Your library of these is a capture asset, not a one-time write.

Take the template

Start it in Word

Copy, paste into your document, fill the brackets.

Contract:           [agency · vehicle · PoP · value · prime/sub]
Scope:              [what you did, framed to THIS pursuit's PWS]
Relevance hooks:    [same mission / scale / constraint / security posture]
Quantified outcome: [the number — uptime, CPARS, cost, schedule]
Reusable proof:     [1–2 facts that become win-theme ammunition]
Confirmability:     [CPARS rating + reference recency]
Take the prompt

Draft it in Claude

Copy, paste into Claude, add your own inputs.

You are tuning a past-performance reference to a specific pursuit.

Inputs
- Raw project description (what we did): ...
- The target pursuit's PWS / requirements: ...

Produce a past-performance card that:
1. Reframes the scope in the language of the target PWS.
2. Lists relevance hooks that map to the target's ACTUAL requirements
   (mission, scale, constraint, security posture) — show the match,
   don't assert “highly relevant.”
3. Surfaces the quantified outcome. If I didn't give a number, flag the gap.
4. Pulls 1–2 reusable proof points suitable for a win theme.

Do not inflate relevance. If the fit is weak, say where.

Why this works

Customer + contractAgency, vehicle, period of performance, value, role (prime/sub).
Scope in their wordsWhat you did, framed to match this pursuit's PWS, not a generic blurb.
Relevance hooksThe specific similarities to this pursuit: same mission, same scale, same constraints, same security posture. This is what the evaluator scores.
Quantified outcomeThe number. Uptime, CPARS rating, cost avoided, schedule beaten. A reference without a number is a story.
Reusable proof pointsThe one or two facts from this job that become win-theme ammunition elsewhere.
CPARS / reference contactRecency and confirmability.

A worked example

Contract — Federal Student Aid (FSA) Cloud Migration & O&M · GSA Alliant 2 · 2022–2025 · $31M · Prime.

Scope — Migrated 240 production workloads to a FedRAMP High environment and ran steady-state O&M for a benefits-processing platform serving citizens nationwide.

Relevance hooks — Citizen-facing benefits system (same as target); FedRAMP High (same); zero-downtime continuity requirement (same); 200+ workload scale (comparable).

Quantified outcome — Zero unplanned downtime and no Priority-1 incidents across cutover; 94% incumbent staff retention; CPARS “Exceptional” on Quality and Schedule.

Reusable proof points — “240 workloads to FedRAMP High, zero unplanned downtime” → feeds the continuity win theme.

Confirmability — CPARS on file; COR reference current as of last quarter.

Is mine right? The tells

Green flags

Relevance hooks map to this pursuit's actual requirements. There's a number. A writer could lift a proof point straight into a win theme. Recent and confirmable.

Red flags

Generic scope blurb reused unchanged across pursuits. No quantified outcome. Relevance asserted (“highly relevant”) instead of shown. Stale or unreachable reference.

Want the theory behind it? What past performance actually has to prove → Learn explains why; this is where you grab it.
Sources & further reading

Or have frwrd run this for you.

Grab it here when you’ve got it handled. When the bid matters more than the afternoon, a senior operator builds it — right, on deadline, as part of the pursuit.

Start with the Sprint →