Unfair by Design? Flaws in CPARS Disputes and What Needs to Change

The Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) heavily influences who wins federal contracts, but its dispute process is anything but fair. Agencies can post their version of events—accurate or not—with little neutral oversight, while contractors get limited time to respond and few options for real correction. It’s time for reform. Independent reviews, temporary holds on disputed ratings, clear evidence rules, and enforceable deadlines would make CPARS more accurate and balanced. Lawmakers and industry leaders must act to make the CPARS a tool that truly rewards performance and improves a contractor’s ability to compete for new awards on a level playing field.

A. What Is the CPARS?

The CPARS is the federal government’s primary tool for documenting and sharing contractor past performance on federal contracts. Contracting officers (COs), or their designees, draft a narrative and score ratings (from unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good, to exceptional) across multiple factors, with the most common factors being quality, schedule, cost control, management, and small business utilization. These evaluations are uploaded into the government’s past performance database and are commonly checked as part of best-value procurements. In competitive bid scenarios, just one negative CPARS entry can result in a lost contract—impacting source selection rankings, competitive range decisions, and even final award determinations.

B. How Does the CPARS Evaluation Process Work?

1. The assessing official (AO) first drafts an evaluation at key milestones, typically midway through performance and/or at contract completion.
2. The contractor will receive a notification through CPARS updating the entity that a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) was completed. The contractor then has a short window (commonly 14 calendar days) to provide comments and rebuttal before the evaluation goes public.
3. The AO will review the contractor’s response and may revise the evaluation or leave it unchanged. If the contractor does not concur with the evaluation, a reviewing official (RO) must review and sign the evaluation and provide narrative comment. Note that during this review period by the AO/RO, if after the 14-calendar-day window, the CPAR remains public and accessible to procurement officials.
4. The RO must be a government employee and one level above the AO as determined by agency policy. The RO provides a final review when there is a disagreement between the AO and contractor. The RO similarly has the right to revise the evaluation or leave it unchanged, depending on his or her review.
5. Once the RO signs and uploads his or her evaluation, it is reposted to the CPARS where it is again published and accessible to procurement officials for subsequent awards.
6. To the extent a contractor still disagrees with the evaluation, the contractor has two options: (1) pursue an informal, agency-level request that the evaluation be removed, placed in non-public (also known as draft) status, and/or revised, and/or (2) file a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) with the CO challenging the factual inaccuracies in the evaluation.
7. Unfortunately, either avenue rarely provides timely relief before the CPAR detrimentally impacts a contractor’s competitive standing.

C. Why the Structure Is Unfair

1. Conflict of Interest: The same AO that drafted the evaluation typically settles any dispute over factual inaccuracies. Although the RO is expected to be a neutral and a more independent reviewer, the RO is usually one level above the AO amongst the contracting team and can be similarly biased.
2. Compressed Timelines vs. Long-Lasting Impacts: Contractors get an extremely brief window of time to provide their rebuttals. Meanwhile, a negative CPAR can impact a contractor’s ability to bid for and win awards for years. For instance, a typical CPAR may remain in the system for up to three to six years after contract completion, depending on the contract type.
3. Lack of Timely Remedies: Once public, a negative CPAR is immediately available to source selection officials for consideration despite a dispute over its content. Claims challenging a CPAR under the CDA can take months, if not years, to resolve, while the CPAR remains public even if it contains inaccuracies. By the time a resolution is reached, the market harm—lost opportunities, downgraded past performance ratings, and competitive stigma—is not retroactively repairable.
4. Lack of Meaningful Resolution at the Board of Contract Appeals (the Board): To the extent the contractor successfully appealed to the Board an agency decision not to change a CPAR, the Board lacks jurisdiction to mandate certain changes to the CPAR, i.e., require a specific change to a particular factor rating. While Boards and Courts cannot directly revise a CPAR, they can find that the evaluation was improper and direct the agency to re-evaluate the contractor, but any specific changes on reevaluation are not guaranteed. Similarly, as above, by the time the Board weighs in, the contractor’s reputational harm is irreparable.

D. Congress’ Attempt to Improve the CPARS Dispute Process within DOD

Although Congress has since updated the CPARS for DOD-related procurements, such an update does not go far enough to address the long-lasting, irreversible impact an inaccurate CPAR can have on a contractor’s ability to compete for future contract awards. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2026 includes a pointed revision of contractor performance information requirements. See Sec. 867. The purpose of the revision is to “establish an objective, fact-based, and simplified system for reporting contractor performance” …. [and] “shall focus exclusively on negative performance events that are verifiable and measurable to reduce subjectivity and inconsistency in evaluations.” Id. While such changes reduce the administrative burden on contracting officers by narrowing the scope for assessment, the revision fails to address, much less provide a resolution for, a contractor unfairly impacted by an inaccurate and/or improper CPAR.

E. Proposed Fixes to the CPARS

1. Replace RO with an Independent CPAR Review Panel: Replace the RO role with an inter-agency or neutral third-party reviewer for contested evaluations before final posting.
2. Move Dispute to Draft Status: To the extent a CPAR is rebutted by the contractor, the CPAR should be placed in non-public, draft status until resolution and negotiation between the parties. This prevents a CPAR from being publicly available while the parties resolve any disputed narratives and/or ratings.
3. Extend Response Window: Extend the formal rebuttal window prior to publication from 14 days to 30 days to better allow the parties to present accurate information in the case of a disputed CPAR.
4. Require Evidence-Based Documentation: Mandate the AO includes citations to specific contract clauses and documentation (i.e., dated daily reports, photographs) to support any negative findings or allegations of failed corrective action.
5. Create Dispute Resolution Deadline: Establish a set deadline (e.g., 30–45 days) for resolving CPAR disputes. If unresolved at the close of negotiations between the parties, the CPAR will be moved out of draft status, a “disputed” flag will be placed on the public CPAR, and the rating is ostensibly discounted in future procurements. The contractor then has the right to move forward with a formal claim under the CDA to challenge the disputed CPAR.

F. Conclusion: CPARS Needs Neutrality, Evidentiary Support, and Timeliness

The CPARS plays a major role in shaping who wins federal contracts, but the way disputes are handled is far from balanced. Right now, agencies can seemingly write their version of events, and even if inaccurate, such accounts often go unchallenged—basically becoming “facts” without much neutral oversight. Contractors get minimal time to respond, the record is often one-sided, and any real fix usually comes too late—after the damage is done.

A better system would include more independent reviews, temporary pause on publishing disputed ratings, clear rules for evidence, and deadlines that actually matter. Reform like this would help ensure past performance reviews are trustworthy, improve how contracts are awarded, and remind everyone that CPARS is meant to promote accountability and not be used to strong-arm contractors or gain leverage in negotiations.

Attorneys on PilieroMazza’s REAs, Claims, and Appeals team have extensive experience helping government contractors address and resolve issues involving negative CPARS ratings. If you need assistance, please contact Lauren Brier, Chair of the Group.