For federal contractors, past performance can be the difference between winning and losing a contract. Past performance allows the agency to gauge the contractor’s likelihood of success under the instant procurement by offering the agency valuable insight into the contractor’s performance under similar contracts. Considering this, it is not surprising that offerors sometimes cite affiliate past performance to gain a competitive advantage.

In general, procuring agencies may evaluate and credit an offeror for the past performance of its affiliate. This rule, however, is not boundless. GAO’s decision in Enviremedial Services Inc., B-423552 et al., (Comp. Gen. Aug. 28, 2025) highlights the risk of relying upon the past performance of a similarly named affiliate. Of note, this discussion only covers a small portion of the overall protest and discussion.

This procurement contemplated a best value trade-off, considering price and two non-price factors: understanding of the work and past performance. In evaluating past performance, the agency was to assess both relevance and quality. Relevance was to be measured by how similar “the contract’s service, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel, and extent of subcontracting or teaming” were to the current contract requirements.

As important here, the solicitation explicitly limited relevant past performance to prime contracts performed by the offeror or a team member. 

The procurement was awarded to a company called BryMak & Associates, Inc. (“BryMak”), who referenced a contract performed by BryMak Eagle Pro LLC (“BryMak Eagle”) as its past performance. BryMak did not explain whether it was the same entity as BryMak Eagle, or if the two were affiliates. Nevertheless, the agency credited this past performance to the awardee “as the [p]rime [c]ontractor.” In other words, the agency treated BryMak Eagle’s former contract as BryMak’s contract. The agency even determined this past performance to be “very relevant.”

Enviremedial Services protested the agency’s evaluation, saying that BryMak should not have been able to rely on BryMak Eagle’s past performance. The agency responded that BryMak was a member of the BryMak Eagle joint venture, so it could rely on BryMak Eagle’s past performance. Notably, the agency did not provide any citations to the underlying evaluation record showing that BryMak was part of the BryMak Eagle joint venture.

GAO sustained the protest and found the agency’s past performance evaluation to be flawed. While similar in name, the two entities are nevertheless distinct.  GAO referenced the parties’ SAM.gov registrations, which showed BryMak Eagle being a subsidiary of BryMak. There was also no indication from SAM.gov that BryMak is a member of a BryMak Eagle joint venture.

In short, because the proposal did not include any information demonstrating that BryMak could appropriately claim the past performance of BryMak Eagle, in line with the terms of the solicitation, GAO found the evaluation to be unreasonable.

So what’s the takeaway? When an RFP clearly defines relevant past performance, the agency must evaluate accordingly. Here, the RFP specifically limited relevant past performance to prime contracts performed by the offeror or a team member. Consequently, an offeror cannot be credited for the past performance of a similarly named affiliate when the affiliate is neither the offeror nor the offeror’s team member. Therefore, the agency unreasonably credited the awardee with its affiliate’s prime contract, and GAO sustained the protest on this ground.

In a footnote, GAO clarifies that, even without this RFP requirement, “[a]n agency may generally attribute the past performance of an affiliated company to an offeror only where the firm’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the affiliate will affect the performance of the offeror.” In other words, the nature of the relationship must be fully disclosed in addition to meeting procurement-specific requirements.

This is a cautionary tale for federal contractors. To receive credit for the past performance of its affiliate, it is advisable for an offeror’s proposal to

  • explain the relationship between the affiliate and the offeror,
  • demonstrate how the affiliate’s resources will lend to the offeror’s performance, and
  • conform to the procurement’s past performance specifications.

Please note that noncompliance might doom an offeror’s chance of award.

Moving forward, it is insufficient to rely on a similarly named affiliate’s past performance without any explanation in the hope that the agency will credit it to the offeror. 

If you found this article helpful, we ask that you share it with your network. Additionally, if you have questions about this case or have questions about a recent evaluation of your own past performance, please contact us. We’d be happy to help!

No Explanation, No Credit: A Cautionary Tale About Relying on an Affiliate for Past Performance was last modified: February 19th, 2026 by Kaylee Jacobson