CPARS and past performance, explained

The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is the Governmentwide tool in which agencies record how a contractor performed on a contract or order. The FAR Overhaul's Part 42 calls CPARS "the official source for past performance information." Codified FAR 42.1503 sets the procedures in subpart 42.15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); the overhaul text moves them to subpart 42.11. The Department of Defense (DoD) has used the overhaul text since March 16, 2026, under class deviation 2026-O0050. Source selection officials then read the record when they evaluate offers.

When an evaluation is required

Overhaul section 42.1102 requires an evaluation at least annually and when the work is completed; interim evaluations are permissible. Outside DoD, evaluations are required for each contract and order above the simplified acquisition threshold, including orders under Federal Supply Schedule and other multi-agency contracts. Construction contracts of $900,000 or more and architect-engineer contracts of $45,000 or more need them, as does any such contract terminated for default.

DoD uses different floors. The deviation's DFARS 242.1102-70(b) points to the thresholds in DFARS 215.104-70(g) in place of FAR 42.1102(b) through (d). Table 1 of the CPARS guidance, dated July 13, 2026, lists the DoD values:

• Systems, and non-systems operations support: above $5,000,000.
• Services, and information technology: above $1,000,000.
• Ship repair and overhaul: above $500,000.

Evaluations for classified contracts and special access programs are not reported in CPARS. Agencies use CPARS information within three years of completion of the evaluated work, or six years for construction and architect-engineer contracts.

Factors and the five ratings

Each evaluation covers at least technical quality, cost control, schedule, management or business relations, small business subcontracting, and other matters such as terminations. Cost control does not apply to firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment arrangements. Each factor gets a narrative and one of five ratings, defined in Table 42-1:

• Exceptional: meets requirements and exceeds many, with multiple significant benefits and no significant weaknesses.
• Very Good: meets requirements and exceeds some.
• Satisfactory: meets requirements, with minor problems corrected.
• Marginal: does not meet some requirements; the rating should cite the notice that told the contractor of the deficiency.
• Unsatisfactory: does not meet most requirements, and recovery is not likely in a timely manner.

Table 42-1 adds that a contractor is not rated below Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the contract's requirements. Plus and minus signs may show an improving or worsening trend.

The comment window: 14 days or 60

Under codified 42.1503(d) and overhaul 42.1103(d), CPARS notifies the contractor when an evaluation is ready. The contractor has up to 14 calendar days to submit comments, rebuttals, or more information. A level above the contracting officer reviews disagreements, but the evaluation remains the agency's decision. The evaluation reaches source selection officials within 14 days of that notice. The two FAR texts differ on late comments: codified 42.1503(f) has the Government add comments provided after 14 days, while overhaul 42.1103(e)(4) refers to comments provided within the 14-day timeframe.

The CPARS guidance describes a longer window. The contractor's representative may comment for 60 calendar days and must request any meeting in writing within seven days. The evaluation becomes visible to source selection officials 15 days after the assessing official signs it, marked "Pending" until closed. A reviewing official must sign when the contractor does not concur. The whole process is to finish within 120 days after the period ends. The guidance calls itself non-regulatory and says the FAR, then agency supplements, take precedence over it.

Integrity records in FAPIIS

Some actions go to a separate module, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) module of CPARS. Under overhaul 42.1103(g), the contracting officer must see that it is updated within 3 calendar days after certain final actions:

• a determination that the contractor submitted defective cost or pricing data;
• a termination for cause or default, or its conversion to a termination for convenience;
• a substantiated trafficking-in-persons violation; or
• a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors under one contract within 12 months.

The overhaul text ties these records to responsibility determinations under part 9. FAPIIS entries are publicly available unless a Freedom of Information Act exemption applies. A completed CPARS evaluation is not: codified 42.1503(d) limits it to Government personnel and the evaluated contractor while it may be used for source selection.

How source selections use the record

Codified FAR 15.305(a)(2) treats past performance as one indicator of ability to perform. Evaluators weigh currency, relevance, source, context, and trends, and the source selection authority decides relevance. Offerors may describe problems and corrective actions. Information on predecessor companies, key personnel, and major subcontractors can count. An offeror with no relevant record "may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably." The overhaul's Part 15 keeps that rule at 15.202(c). Section 15.104 requires past performance in every competitive source selection unless the contracting officer documents why not.

DoD's Source Selection Procedures, dated August 20, 2022, assess recency, relevancy, and quality. Relevancy has four levels, from Very Relevant to Not Relevant. The result is a confidence rating: Substantial, Satisfactory, Neutral, Limited, or No Confidence. Sources include CPARS, questionnaires, and interviews. An offeror without a record receives Neutral.

What to check

• Does the contract or order exceed the threshold that applies: the simplified acquisition threshold, or for DoD, the Table 1 value for its business sector?
• Does each rating carry a narrative based on objective facts, and does a Marginal rating cite the notice sent to the contractor?
• Were contractor comments filed within 14 days, and was a non-concurrence sent to the reviewing official?
• Is the evaluation within three years of completion, or six for construction and architect-engineer work?
• Does the solicitation state how recency and relevancy are judged, and how offerors with no record are treated?
• Did the evaluators rate a newcomer Neutral rather than unfavorably, as FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) and the overhaul's 15.202(c) require?

Sources

1. 1FAR 42.1503 Procedures · Acquisition.gov, FAC 2026-01, effective March 13, 2026
2. 2FAR Overhaul - Part 42 · Acquisition.gov, FAR Overhaul (Part 42 issued September 30, 2025)
3. 3Class Deviation - Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul Part 42, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Part 242 (DARS Tracking Number 2026-O0050) · Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy, effective March 16, 2026
4. 4Guidance for the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) · CPARS, July 13, 2026
5. 5FAR 15.305 Proposal evaluation · Acquisition.gov, FAC 2026-01, effective March 13, 2026
6. 6FAR Overhaul - Part 15 · Acquisition.gov, FAR Overhaul (Part 15 issued September 30, 2025)
7. 7Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures · Defense Pricing and Contracting, August 20, 2022

Where this shows up in our work

• LEDGER, auditable Army acquisition decisions turns a trade study into a package where every number cites its source and AI drafts but never decides.
• ELLMENT, the offline LLM for E-2D crews answers a crew's question from the aircraft's own manuals and cites the page, with no network.
• TRACE, the offline S1000D and IETM viewer opens S1000D, MIL-STD-3001 and PDF technical manuals on a tablet with every marking intact.