Contractor performance · on the record

Do you know how your next contractor performed for the last agency that hired them?

Almost no agency can answer that. The evidence exists, written by the people who were there, and it sits in a file nobody else can reach. The Civic Performance Exchange is where it goes instead, and joining is how you get answers back about the firms in front of you.

See what joining involvesOr open the working demonstration. About 90 seconds, no account.

RB‑2024‑001 · v2 · finalCity of Riverbend

Citywide classification and compensation study

Meridian Public Advisors LLC · finalized March 2025

Quality / technical meritVery good
ScheduleSatisfactory
Cost controlNot rated
Contractor response · on the record

Milestone 3 was accepted June 12; the July date in the draft was the invoice date. Acceptance email attached.

sha256 4c81…9e2f · version chain intact · superseded v1 retained

Why this exists

Federal buyers have CPARS. The roughly 90,000 state and local entities that buy professional services have nothing equivalent, so past performance arrives as reference letters the vendor selected, or it gets replaced by a financial proxy.

The proxy is the part that does real damage. A young firm with little debt history scores poorly on a commercial credit model built to rate corporate borrowing, and that score ends up standing in for how the firm actually performs, even where written evaluations say otherwise. The evidence exists. It is simply not written down anywhere a second agency can reach it.

What to look at

Each of these is a different seat in the same system. The sign-in page lists every identity; these three show the most.

The agency workflow

Sign in as Sam Whitfield, evaluator

A record moves from draft through attestation, supervisory review, the contractor’s comment, agency reconsideration, and finalization. Adverse ratings cannot be attested without linked evidence. Once a record is final it cannot be edited; a correction becomes a new version and the old one stays readable.

Sharing between agencies

Sign in as Morgan Hale, source selection

Harbor County and City of Riverbend have signed a sharing agreement, so a record Harbor issued about a firm Riverbend is considering appears in the search, labelled with the agency that issued it. Harbor sees who searched and the purpose they gave.

What a contractor sees

Sign in as Tomasz Reyes, Bluefield Technology Partners

A contractor sees records about their own work and can answer one while it is still open. Records under internal agency drafting stay closed until they reach the contractor, and nothing about any other firm is reachable.

What the system will not do

These are constraints in the code and the database rather than statements of intent. Several are enforced by tests that fail if the behaviour changes.

No composite vendor score
Ratings stay separate by dimension, in words, attached to the contract they came from. Nothing in the system reduces a firm to a number.
Finalized records are append-only
A correction creates a new version and supersedes the old one. Both remain readable, and the chronology can be exported for an administrative record.
Having no record is neutral
A firm with no evaluation history is shown as having none. Absence is never scored as a negative.
Relevance never reads financial data
The comparison that ranks past performance against a new procurement rejects credit and financial inputs outright. Every factor it does use is disclosed with its weight.
Contractors are never charged
Reading a record, answering it, and disputing it are free to the contractor, permanently.

Two ways to go further

Look around the working demonstration first if you would rather see it than read about it. Fourteen identities across two agencies and three contractor firms, and you can switch between them at any time.

See what joining involvesOpen the demonstration instead