12d • AI + Past Performances
🚨Past Performance Rewrite 🚨
Most past performance writeups fail for one reason:
👉 They describe work instead of proving value to the evaluator.
Today I’m sharing a quick rewrite example to show how small changes can dramatically improve how your experience is scored—without changing the facts.
❌ BEFORE (What Evaluators See All the Time)
“Our team provided IT support services, including system maintenance, troubleshooting, and user support for a federal customer.”
âś… True
❌ Forgettable
❌ No evaluator confidence
✅ AFTER (Evaluator‑Focused Rewrite)
“Our team supported a federal customer by maintaining mission‑critical IT systems, resolving user issues within defined SLAs, and ensuring uninterrupted operations for daily users—demonstrating our ability to deliver reliable, compliant IT support in a federal environment.”
Same work.
Very different impact.
🔑 What Changed (At a High Level)
Without giving the whole playbook away, notice that the rewrite:
- Anchors to mission impact
- Signals performance confidence
- Uses evaluator language, not internal jargon
This is the difference between listing tasks and earning trust.
🧠The Rule of Thumb
If your past performance can be copied and pasted into any proposal…
…it’s not doing its job.
Past performance should:
âś” Match the solicitation language
âś” Reinforce Section M evaluation factors
âś” Reduce evaluator risk in one read
Compliance & Ethics Notes
- No fabricated metrics, claims, or customer details
- All examples are illustrative only
- Reinforces compliant, evaluator‑aligned proposal writing
- Supports Professional‑in‑the‑Loop (PITL) review
0
0 comments
🚨Past Performance Rewrite 🚨
skool.com/ai-proposal-wins-for-govcon
Learn AI workflows that help you write better GovCon proposals and win more contracts.
Powered by