One of the most common questions government contractors ask after receiving a negative Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) is also one of the hardest to answer: “How long does a CPAR stay on my record?” Many contractors assume there is a simple answer. At some point, a CPAR becomes too old to matter, and agencies can no longer rely on it. In this blog, we examine a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) protest decision that demonstrates why the answer is not nearly that simple and highlight several practical lessons for contractors evaluating past performance risk.
The Protest
In Veterans Mgmt. Servs., Inc., B-424182.2 (June 22, 2026), GAO sustained a protest after the Department of Veterans Affairs excluded CPARS information associated with contracts that were more than three years old. The agency treated the three-year mark as a hard cutoff. GAO found that approach inconsistent with the solicitation, which stated that experience within the past three years “may be viewed more favorably” than older performance. Because the solicitation contemplated that older performance would still be considered, albeit potentially with less weight, the agency could not simply ignore it.
The decision raises an issue that many contractors misunderstand. While CPARS information may become older over time, that does not necessarily mean it becomes irrelevant. As this case demonstrates, whether a past performance evaluation can still affect a procurement often depends on how the solicitation defines recency and relevance.
There Is No Universal CPARS Expiration Date
One of the most common misconceptions in federal contracting is that CPARS evaluations automatically become irrelevant after a certain number of years. This decision serves as a reminder that there is no universally applicable expiration date. Some solicitations establish hard recency windows. Others express a preference for more recent performance while still allowing agencies to consider older contracts. As a result, two different solicitations could treat the same CPAR very differently.
The practical takeaway is significant. Contractors should not assume that a negative CPAR becomes irrelevant simply because it crosses an arbitrary age threshold. Likewise, they should not assume that an exceptional CPAR from several years ago is automatically off the table. The starting point is always the solicitation’s recency and relevance criteria.
FAR 42.1503 Is Not the Whole Story
Many contractors understandably point to FAR 42.1503, which directs agencies to use CPARS information within three years of contract completion (or six years for construction and architect-engineer contracts). That regulation provides an important baseline, but this decision demonstrates that it is not the end of the analysis.
FAR 42.1503 addresses the government’s use of performance information. It does not answer how a solicitation will define recency, relevance, or the relative weight assigned to older performance references. In other words, contractors should be cautious about relying on general assumptions derived from the FAR. When it comes to evaluating past performance, the solicitation remains king.
Recency Is Not the Same as Relevance
The most useful lesson from the decision may be that recency and relevance are not interchangeable concepts. The Department of Veterans Affairs treated them as if they were. If performance was more than three years old, the agency deemed it “not more favorable” and stopped its evaluation. GAO rejected that approach because the solicitation’s statement that older performance could be viewed less favorably did not mean it could be ignored altogether. Stated differently, less favorable does not mean irrelevant.
That distinction matters because contractors often focus exclusively on the age of a CPAR. Agencies, however, are often concerned with the relevance of the underlying work. For example, a CPAR associated with a complex professional services contract may be several years old, yet the contract itself may provide highly relevant evidence of the contractor’s ability to perform requirements that closely resemble the work being procured. Conversely, a negative CPAR may continue to matter long after a contractor hopes it has faded away because the underlying performance remains relevant to the agency’s current needs.
That is why contractors should not focus solely on whether a CPAR is “old.” Instead, they should ask: “Does the solicitation allow the agency to continue considering that performance, and if so, how much weight can it receive?”
Key Takeaways for Contractors
This decision offers several practical lessons.
- Do not assume that a CPAR automatically “expires” after a certain period of time.
- Carefully review each solicitation’s recency and relevance criteria.
- Distinguish between the age of a CPAR and the relevance of the underlying contract.
- Assume that both positive and negative CPARS may remain relevant longer than expected.
Final Thoughts
The immediate takeaway from Veterans Mgmt. Servs., Inc. is that agencies must evaluate past performance consistent with the terms of the solicitation. The broader lesson is that there is no universally applicable answer to how long a CPAR remains relevant. Whether a past performance evaluation will be considered, and how much weight it will receive, depends largely on the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. As GAO recently reminded agencies, older performance may deserve less weight, but that does not necessarily make it irrelevant.
If you have received a negative CPAR or have questions about how past performance information may affect future procurements, please contact Sam Finnerty or a member of PilieroMazza‘s Government Contracts Group. Understanding how agencies evaluate recency and relevance can be critical to protecting your competitive position in future competitions.
____________________
If you’re seeking practical insights to gain a competitive edge by understanding the government’s compliance requirements, tune into PilieroMazza’s podcasts: GovCon Live!, Clocking in with PilieroMazza, and Ex Rel. Radio.
