Essential Guide to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

For government contractors, your reputation is everything. And when it comes to demonstrating your past performance, nothing is quite as impactful as your Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations. Think of CPARS as your company's continuous, web-based report card, accessible to all government agencies, including the Department of Defense (DoD).

These assessments play a critical role in future contract awards, making it essential for contractors to understand the ins and outs of the system. This guide will walk you through the specifics of CPARS, from its applicability and scope to evaluation requirements, the rating system, and technology that can help you monitor and improve your performance assessments.

Key Takeaways:

• CPARS is your government report card: The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) documents past performance and directly influences future contract awards.
• Strong ratings drive competitive advantage: Exceptional CPARS evaluations differentiate contractors, helping small and large firms win more work in a crowded federal marketplace.
• Proactive management is essential: Tracking deadlines, documenting performance, and using integrated technology solutions help contractors protect their reputation and improve CPARS outcomes.

CPARS is the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, which includes both a contractor's and their agency client's comments on that contractor’s performance during a given contract. It's a government-wide system for collecting and evaluating contractors and holds information on all contracts that map to a particular contractor. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contractor past performance information be collected (FAR Section 42.1502) and used in source selection evaluations (FAR Section 15.304). In other words, it helps government agencies decide on contenders for new contracts.

That said, it’s essential to recognize that most contracts have their share of hiccups.

To provide some context: An excellent CPARS past performance evaluation on a specific contract by a Department of State (DoS) agency could include language such as "There were some issues early on, but the contractor course-corrected and showed amazing growth." Or, more rarely, an evaluation can contain purely complimentary language, such as "We were very happy with this contractor's performance and look forward to working with them again." Both of these reviews are considered positive.

In summary: CPARS was created to provide clear, timely evaluations of contractor performance so the government works only with companies that deliver quality products and services.

LEARN HOW TO NAVIGATE CPARS

Hosted by Cara Wulf, Partner at McCarter & English LLP, this webinar offers contractors a deeper understanding of potential disagreements that can arise when measuring contractor performance.

Watch the Webinar

CPARS information generally includes a contractor's record of performance in the following key areas:

• Conforms To the Requirements of Good Workmanship: Can a contractor consistently comply with the standards of a contract?
• Forecasts and Controls Costs Consistently and Well: Is what a contractor spends during a contract predictable and frugal?
• Adheres To Schedules, Including Administrative Aspects of Performance: Does the contractor meet work-product delivery as well as operational task deadlines?
• Demonstrates Cooperative Behavior and Commitment to Client Satisfaction: Is the contractor reasonable and responsive? Do they invoice promptly? Do they consistently handle the nuts and bolts of contract administration with relative ease? If they disagree with the government, do they make their voice heard, and is it presented objectively?
• Complies With the Requirements of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Does the contractor take steps to ensure they hire subcontractors that are small businesses, as required by the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? If there are issues with this compliance, is the contractor's stance well-documented?
• Reports Into Databases: Is the contractor reporting required operational metrics via the prescribed databases on time? Are reports complete?
• Maintains Integrity and Business Ethics: Does the contractor engage with the government in a trustworthy, transparent manner?
• Demonstrates A Business-Like Concern for the Customer's Interests: Does the contractor present a willingness to prioritize their client agency's goals during contract execution?

Contractors are required to submit performance evaluations into the CPARS system annually and at the end of each contract exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). Currently, this threshold is $250,000 for most contracts, although for commercial items, the Simplified Acquisition Threshold is $7.5 million.

Evaluations are required for large and small prime contractors, but not for subcontractors. However, evaluations are required for all parties involved in joint prime ventures. This ensures the government maintains comprehensive performance records for all entities responsible for executing prime contracts.

CPARS evaluations encompass a broad range of contract types, including:

• Orders under multiple and single agency contracts.
• Orders/calls under Blanket Purchase Agreements and Basic Ordering Agreements.
• Base Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts (IDIQs) when aggregate orders exceed certain thresholds.
• Construction contracts in excess of $750,000
• Architect-engineer contracts in excess of $35,000.
• 8(a) direct awards.
• Classified contracts.

Beyond standard performance assessments, CPARS also captures other past performance information that agencies typically enter into the system:

• Determination that a contractor has submitted defective cost or pricing data.
• A final termination for cause or default notice, or a withdrawal or conversion of a termination for default into a termination for convenience.
• A final determination that substantiates an allegation of a violation of the Trafficking in Persons prohibitions.
• A determination that a contractor has a history of three or more unjustifiably reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors under a single contract within a 12-month period.

When creating CPARS evaluations, government agencies are asked to comply with specific standards and formats. Each evaluation factor includes a clear, non-technical description of its principal purpose in the contract. This ensures that future evaluators can quickly understand the context of the work performed.

Evaluations are based on objective data and strive to be fair and accurate. This requirement prevents biased assessments that could unfairly impact a contractor's future opportunities. All evaluation factors have both a supporting narrative and an adjectival rating, the latter assigned on a scale from Exceptional to Unsatisfactory. As a result, every contractor performance evaluation includes both qualitative context and quantitative scoring.

The FAR establishes five distinct, adjectival performance ratings that agencies use to evaluate contractor performance. Consider the following evaluation rating definitions as guides:

Exceptional

In this evaluation rating, performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many, to the government's benefit. The contractual performance encountered few minor problems, and for these, the contractor's corrective actions were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating, evaluators need to identify multiple significant events and state how they benefited the government. A singular benefit could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating.

Very Good

A Very Good rating indicates that performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some of them, thereby benefiting the government. The contractual performance is accomplished with some minor issues, for which the contractor's corrective actions are effective.

To justify this rating, evaluators identify a significant event and state how it benefits the government. At the same time, there should be no significant weaknesses identified.

Satisfactory

This evaluation rating indicates that performance meets contractual requirements; however, it contains some minor issues for which the contractor's corrective actions appear just satisfactory.

To substantiate a Satisfactory rating, there should be only minor problems remedied or major problems from which the contractor recovered without impact to the contract. Too, there are no significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle is that contractors don’t receive a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the contract’s requirements.

Marginal

Here, performance doesn’t meet specific contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem with which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or are only partially implemented.

To justify Marginal performance, evaluators must identify a significant event in each evaluation category that the contractor had trouble overcoming and state how it impacts the government. A Marginal rating should include mention of management tools that notified the contractor of the contractual deficiency.

Unsatisfactory

Performance doesn’t meet most contractual requirements, and prompt recovery isn’t likely. The contractual performance contains serious problems for which the contractor's corrective actions appear ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating, evaluators identify multiple significant events in each category where the contractor struggled to overcome them and state how these impact the government. A singular problem of serious magnitude alone can constitute an unsatisfactory rating. However, this rating should be supported by references to multiple management tools used to notify the contractor of contractual deficiencies.

The CPARS evaluation process follows a structured timeline that gives contractors opportunities to respond to assessments and seek review of their responses:

CPARS Initial Setup and Evaluation

A contractor designates a representative in the CPARS system to receive an evaluation; the relevant government agency appoints an Assessing Official (AO) to conduct the evaluation. The AO enters their evaluation into CPARS as soon as is practical after contract closeout. Once entered, the contractor representative receives an automated notification, officially starting the response timeline, which is 60 days.

Contractor Response Timeline to a CPARS Submission

A contractor has 7 days from the date an evaluation is entered in CPARS to request a meeting with the agency.

Contractors have 14 days from the date an evaluation is submitted to enter comments before the evaluation becomes public. On the 15th day, the evaluation is posted in the system and becomes visible to other government personnel.

If the contractor has not entered comments by the 15th day, the evaluation will be labeled "Pending.” However, again, contractors retain a total of 60 days from the date that the evaluation was entered in CPARS to submit their comments.

Best practice recommendation: Enter comments and rebuttals within the initial 14-day window to prevent the evaluation from becoming publicly visible before the contractor's response is included.

Contractors have the right to request a review of evaluations with which they disagree at a level above the AO. This official is called the Reviewing Official (RO).

The RO is always a government employee who serves as a "check-and-balance" when there is disagreement between the contractor and the initial assessment. Key duties include:

• Providing narrative comments that supplement, but do not replace, the rating and narrative provided by the AO.
• Signing the evaluation.
• Coordinating evaluation with the contract’s contracting officer (CO), when the AO or RO is not the CO. (Often, a specific contract's contracting officer fulfills one role or the other.)

The CPARS evaluation is final when:

• The contractor concurs with all ratings (or fails to enter a disagreement), or
• The RO enters their changes or comments into CPARS.

Pro Tip: A contractor’s comments, explanations and rebuttals become a permanent part of the evaluation record, even if the RO disagrees with the contractor's position.

Any government agency has the right to review evaluations in CPARS, even when they are not submitted by a contractor as part of that agency's specific RFP response proposal. Consider CPARS a government-wide evaluation reporting tool.

Timeframe and Relevance

Agencies are required to use past performance information in CPARS that is within three years (six years for construction and architect-engineer contracts) of a contract or order's completion date. This timeframe ensures that source selection decisions are based on recent and relevant performance data and that COs are making better use of contractor performance information.

Strategic Use of Evaluations

CPARS evaluations serve multiple purposes in source selection:

• Demonstrate the quality of specific past performance.
• Show progress made by small business contractors in developing their capabilities.
• Provide context for the reasons behind lower ratings on prior contracts.

Contractors who use integrated business management systems can seamlessly track and leverage past performance data throughout a contract’s lifecycle, from contract initiation to contract closeout. These solutions’ contract management capabilities enable contractors to leverage historical analysis for more informed negotiations and more competitive proposals.

This web-based platform functions as a centralized repository where government contracting officers can access detailed contractor performance histories that have been input into CPARS from all federal agencies.

The system works through a two-step process. First, agencies and contractors input contractor evaluations into CPARS. Once finalized, these assessments, known as Contractor Performance Assessment Reports, automatically transfer to the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), creating a comprehensive database that contracting officers consult during source selection.

The system enables them to review a contractor's track record across agencies and contract types, ensuring they select vendors with proven capabilities.

Modern government contractors increasingly rely on integrated technology solutions to manage their CPARS performance and documentation. Leading ERP software solutions for government contractors include comprehensive performance assessment capabilities that align with CPARS requirements.

For instance, Deltek Costpoint's Performance Assessment Tab allows contractors to create and track contract elements against performance assessments, including CPARS documentation. The system powers evaluation of each contract based on both Costpoint-defined assessment criteria and custom assessment factors, which can include the quality of the product or service, cost control, management and regulatory compliance.

CPARS Integration with Contract Management

Deltek Costpoint's contract management module specifically supports CPARS-related activities by:

• Tracking bid and proposal costs alongside overall contract and funded values.
• Recording contract modifications and FAR clauses.
• Managing Organizational Conflicts of Interest and Limitations of Costs.
• Integrating with market analysis and contract availability solutions such as Deltek GovWin IQ for seamless opportunity-to-contract transitions.

Successful CPARS management requires proactive planning and systematic documentation throughout the contract lifecycle. These stages include:

Documentation & Tracking

Contractors serve themselves well by carefully documenting performance disagreements both before and during the evaluation period. This documentation provides essential evidence for rebuttal arguments and potential appeals.

Timeline Management

Track deadlines diligently and be prepared to draft detailed rebuttals to agency comments. The compressed timeline for contractor responses, particularly the 14-day window for initial comments, requires clear internal communication channels.

Organizational Coordination

Ensure that business and legal teams coordinate effectively to evaluate strategies and pursue claims or appeals when warranted. This coordination becomes particularly critical when evaluations could significantly impact future business opportunities.

Proactive Performance Management

Rather than waiting for CPARS evaluations, leading contractors implement continuous performance monitoring throughout the contract execution period. Many talent management solutions include project-focused performance management capabilities that can help identify issues before they impact CPARS ratings.

CPARS evaluations represent far more than administrative requirements. They serve as the foundation for future contract opportunities and long-term business success in the government contracting marketplace.

Building Competitive Differentiation

Exceptional CPARS ratings serve as powerful competitive differentiators in an increasingly crowded market. When combined with advanced market intelligence and comprehensive project management, contractors can use CPARS to build narratives of consistent performance excellence.

Long-term Business Impact of CPARS

The three-year relevance period for most CPARS evaluations means that today's contractor performance information directly impacts tomorrow's opportunities.

For small businesses and emerging contractors, a positive CPARS report card creates essential credibility in competing against established players. And the system's focus on demonstrating "progress made by small business contractors to develop their capabilities" creates pathways for growth when supported by strong performance management practices.