Win a federal contract and you acquire more than revenue — you acquire a permanent report card. The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, better known as CPARS, is the government-wide database where agencies record how well every contractor performed, and FAR 42.1502 makes the paperwork mandatory: an evaluation at least annually and again at completion for every contract or order above the simplified acquisition threshold, currently $350,000. Construction contracts trigger evaluations at $900,000 and architect-engineer work at just $45,000 — and any construction or architect-engineer contract terminated for default gets written up regardless of value.

Those evaluations are not filed and forgotten. Under FAR 15.304(c)(3), past performance must be evaluated in competitive negotiated acquisitions expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold unless the contracting officer documents otherwise, and evaluators pull it from CPARS. A marginal rating on one contract can quietly cost you the next three years of awards — which is exactly how long the government keeps using it.

What gets rated, and on what scale

FAR 42.1503 prescribes a five-point scale — exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory — applied across six evaluation areas at minimum: technical quality, cost control (not applicable on firm-fixed-price work), schedule and timeliness, management or business relations, small business subcontracting (including whether you paid small business subs reduced amounts or paid them late), and a catch-all "other" that sweeps in tax delinquency, defective cost or pricing data, terminations, and trafficking violations.

Each factor requires a supporting narrative, and CPARS guidance instructs assessing officials that ratings must be supported by objective evidence wherever possible. In practice, the narrative matters more than the adjective: source selection evaluators read the paragraphs, not just the checkboxes.

The clock that actually matters: 14 days

The contractor's formal rights in the process are compressed into a narrow window. Under FAR 42.1503(d), contractors get up to 14 calendar days from notification to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional information — and the evaluation becomes available to source selection officials no later than day 14, whether you have responded or not.

The CPARS system layers its own mechanics on top of the regulation. Per the November 2025 CPARS guidance, an evaluation posts for source selection use on day 15 — marked "Pending" if you have not commented — and the contractor representative retains access to add comments for a total of 60 days after the assessing official signs. On day 61, you are locked out permanently. If you want a meeting to argue your case, the guidance requires that request in writing within 7 calendar days of receipt.

One more right worth invoking: if you disagree with the rating, FAR 42.1503 requires the agency to provide review at a level above the contracting officer. The reviewing official's comments supplement the record — they do not replace the original ratings — but a documented non-concurrence with a reasoned rebuttal attached is the version of events future evaluators will see.

Who sees it, and for how long

CPARS evaluations are marked source selection information, are strictly off-limits to anyone outside the government other than the rated contractor, and are not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act. Agencies use them for three years after performance ends — six years for construction and architect-engineer contracts.

Contractors with no track record get a specific protection: FAR 15.305 provides that an offeror without relevant past performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor. The dreaded "neutral" rating is real, and for new entrants it beats a bad record — though rarely a good one.

Fighting a bad rating

Here the news is sobering. A bid protest is the wrong tool: the Court of Federal Claims dismissed exactly that attempt in Colonna's Shipyard v. United States, holding a protest is not the proper forum for challenging a CPARS evaluation. GAO will examine how an agency used past performance in a particular source selection, but not the underlying rating itself.

The correct route runs through the Contract Disputes Act: submit a claim to the contracting officer, receive a final decision, then appeal to a board of contract appeals or the Court of Federal Claims. In Cameron Bell Corp., ASBCA No. 61856, the Armed Services Board confirmed it has jurisdiction to decide whether a contracting officer acted arbitrarily in assigning a rating — but also made the remedy's limits plain. The board cannot order the government to change your rating; it can only remand with instructions to produce a fair and accurate evaluation. Combined with a six-year statute of limitations that does nothing to stop the rating from costing you awards in the meantime, the practical lesson is that prevention beats litigation by a wide margin.

What It Means for Contractors

Treat CPARS as a deliverable, not an afterthought. Document performance contemporaneously — delivery confirmations, government praise in emails, resolved issues — because a rebuttal written in 14 days from a cold file loses to one assembled from a running record. Calendar the comment window the moment a notification lands; practitioners consistently report that missing it is the single most damaging unforced error, since the evaluation posts on day 15 with or without your side of the story.

Interim evaluations are your early-warning system. CPARS guidance requires them annually on multi-year contracts, which means no final rating should ever surprise you: a marginal interim is an invitation to fix the relationship — and the record — before it hardens. And if a rating is genuinely unfair, escalate promptly: written comments, the above-the-CO review, then a CDA claim, in that order.

Finally, watch the regulatory ground shift. The FAR Overhaul's model deviation text renumbers contractor performance information from subpart 42.15 to 42.11, and several agencies have already adopted it by class deviation. Proposals to move CPARS toward a negative-events-only model surfaced in FY26 NDAA deliberations but were dropped from the law as enacted in December 2025 — as of mid-2026, the five-point scale and the 14-day window remain the law of the land.

Sources