Build and maintain exceptional past performance ratings
Last reviewed on May 12, 2026.
The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is the government-wide system where agencies record how contractors performed on their contracts. Assessments are prepared on contracts above dollar thresholds that vary by contract type, and are generally produced annually during performance and again at completion.
What makes CPARS consequential is where the data goes. Completed assessments feed the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), now accessed through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System's integration with SAM.gov, and that is the record source-selection teams pull when they evaluate past performance on your next bid. A CPARS record is not an internal HR file — it is the single most durable piece of marketing, good or bad, that a contract produces.
Assessments use a five-level adjectival scale. The definitions below are the operative distinctions evaluators apply — note that the scale is anchored on the contract requirements, not on whether the customer liked working with you.
Performance exceeds contractual requirements to the government's benefit. Requires citation of specific, identifiable benefits — not general praise. Any problems that arose were negligible and handled without customer prompting.
Performance meets requirements and exceeds some to the government's benefit. Problems were minor and the contractor's corrective actions were effective.
Performance meets contractual requirements. Problems were minor and corrective actions were satisfactory. This is the rating for doing exactly what the contract required — it is not a criticism, but it also wins no discriminator in a source selection.
Performance does not meet some requirements. Problems the contractor did not resolve satisfactorily, or corrective actions that were only marginally effective. A recovery plan is typically expected.
Performance does not meet most requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Serious problems for which corrective actions were ineffective. This rating follows you through source selections for years.
The Satisfactory trap. Contractors often read "Satisfactory" as a good grade and let it stand. In competitive source selections where several offerors carry Very Good and Exceptional records, a wall of Satisfactory ratings reads as a firm that does the minimum. If you believe the performance genuinely exceeded requirements, the time to make that case with evidence is during the comment window — not after the record is final.
The mechanics run on a fixed clock, and two windows decide whether you have any influence over the record:
Practical consequence: designate a CPARS point of contact who actually monitors the account, and keep the designation current in the system when people leave.
| Area | Key Factors | Best Practices |
|---|---|---|
| Technical / Quality | Deliverable quality, conformance to specification, problem-solving, innovation | Capture defect and rework rates. "Zero rejected deliverables across 14 submissions" beats "high quality work." |
| Schedule | On-time delivery, milestone achievement, recovery from slips | Track delivery dates against the baseline, and document when a slip was government-caused so it is not scored against you. |
| Cost Control | Budget management, cost savings, accurate forecasting | Applies mainly to cost-reimbursement and incentive contracts. On FFP work this area is often rated N/A — do not fight for a rating you cannot earn. |
| Management / Business Relations | Communication, responsiveness, staffing stability, subcontractor management | Key personnel turnover is what evaluators notice here. Backfill fast and tell the customer before they ask. |
| Small Business Subcontracting | Achievement against subcontracting plan goals, eSRS reporting timeliness | Rated where a subcontracting plan applies. See subcontracting plans for goal-setting and eSRS mechanics. |
| Regulatory Compliance / Other | Environmental, safety, security, and other contract-specific requirements | Used where the contract carries specific regulatory obligations. Often the area contractors forget to build evidence for. |
Not every area is scored on every contract. Areas that do not apply are marked N/A, and an N/A is neutral — it is not a missing grade.
Non-concurrence works when it is evidentiary and narrow. It fails when it is an argument about fairness. A response that changes a rating generally does four things:
Tone matters more than most contractors expect. The reviewing official is one level above the person who wrote the assessment, often in the same office. A response that reads as an attack on the assessing official rarely succeeds; one that reads as a correction of the record frequently does.
By the time a draft assessment appears, the argument is largely settled by whatever is already in writing. Contractors with consistently strong records tend to run the same routine:
CPARS ratings are what evaluators see when assessing past performance on your future proposals. Building, citing, and managing the portfolio is a broader topic than the rating mechanics described here. See past performance strategy for portfolio construction, proposal citation, and how to handle a negative rating in future bids.
Five adjectival levels: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. Exceptional and Very Good both require the assessment to cite identifiable benefits to the government, not general praise. Satisfactory means the contract requirements were met. Marginal and Unsatisfactory indicate requirements were not met, with Unsatisfactory reserved for serious problems where corrective action was ineffective and recovery is unlikely.
Assessments are scored across Technical/Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management and Business Relations, Small Business Subcontracting where a subcontracting plan applies, and Regulatory Compliance or other contract-specific areas. Not every area applies to every contract — Cost Control is frequently marked N/A on firm-fixed-price work, and an N/A is neutral rather than a missing grade.
The contractor representative typically has 14 calendar days from release of the draft to concur, non-concur, or submit comments. After that window the assessment becomes available to source-selection officials regardless of whether you responded. Contractors generally retain access to submit comments for up to 60 days from release, but comments filed after the initial window are appended to a record evaluators can already see.
It can be revised, but rarely removed. If you non-concur, the assessment goes to a reviewing official one level above the assessing official, whose determination closes the record. Success depends on contemporaneous documentation — emails, delivery receipts, acceptance records dated at the time of the events in question — and on contesting specific statements rather than arguing the rating was unfair overall. Boards and courts have generally declined to second-guess the substance of performance ratings, so the administrative process is where the argument has to be won.
It means you met the contract requirements, which is not a criticism. But in a competitive source selection where other offerors hold Very Good and Exceptional records, a portfolio of Satisfactory ratings reads as a firm that does the minimum. If performance genuinely exceeded requirements, make that case with evidence during the comment window rather than accepting the default.
Past performance information is generally retained and available to source-selection officials for three years after contract completion (six years for construction and architect-engineer contracts). That is the practical window in which a bad rating keeps costing you work — and the reason a single unresolved Marginal can outlast the contract that produced it.
An assessing official — usually the contracting officer's representative or the program manager who observed performance day to day. Because they draft from their own records, the monthly status reporting you send them becomes their source material. Contractors who supply a concise written performance summary each month materially influence what ends up in the assessment.