Subpart 42.15 - Contractor Performance

Information

Parent topic: Part 42 - Contract Administration and Audit Services

42.1500 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides policies and establishes responsibilities for recording and maintaining

contractor performance information. This subpart does not apply to procedures used by agencies in

determining fees under award or incentive fee contracts. See subpart 16.4. However, the fee amount

paid to contractors should be reflective of the contractor’s performance and the past performance

evaluation should closely parallel and be consistent with the fee determinations.

42.1501 General.

(a) Past performance information (including the ratings and supporting narratives) is relevant

information, for future source selection purposes, regarding a contractor’s actions under previously

awarded contracts or orders. It includes, for example, the contractor’s record of-

(1) Conforming to requirements and to standards of good workmanship;

(2) Forecasting and controlling costs;

(3) Adherence to schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance;

(4) Reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction;

(5) Complying with the requirements of the small business subcontracting plan (see 19.705-7(b));

(6) Reporting into databases (see subpart 4.14, and reporting requirements in the solicitation

provisions and clauses referenced in 9.104-7);

(7) Integrity and business ethics; and

(8) Business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

(b) Agencies shall monitor their compliance with the past performance evaluation requirements (see

42.1502), and use the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) metric tools

to measure the quality and timely reporting of past performance information. CPARS is the official

source for past performance information.

42.1502 Policy.

(a) General. Past performance evaluations shall be prepared at least annually and at the time the

work under a contract or order is completed. Past performance evaluations are required for
contracts and orders as specified in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, including contracts

and orders performed outside the United States. These evaluations are generally for the entity,

division, or unit that performed the contract or order. Past performance information shall be entered

into CPARS, the Governmentwide evaluation reporting tool for all past performance reports on

contracts and orders. Instructions for submitting evaluations into CPARS are available at

http://www.cpars.gov/.

(b) Contracts. Except as provided in paragraphs (e), (f), and (h) of this section, agencies shall

prepare evaluations of contractor performance for each contract (as defined in FAR part 2) that

exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold and for each order that exceeds the simplified

acquisition threshold. Agencies are required to prepare an evaluation if a modification to the

contract causes the dollar amount to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

(c) Orders under multiple-agency contracts. Agencies shall prepare an evaluation of contractor

performance for each order that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold that is placed under a

Federal Supply Schedule contract or placed under a task-order contract or a delivery-order contract

awarded by another agency (i.e., Governmentwide acquisition contract or multi-agency contract).

Agencies placing orders under their own multiple-agency contract shall also prepare evaluations for

their own orders. This evaluation shall not consider the requirements under paragraph (g) of this

section. Agencies are required to prepare an evaluation if a modification to the order causes the

dollar amount to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

(d) Orders under single-agency contracts. For single-agency task-order and delivery-order contracts,

the contracting officer may require performance evaluations for each order in excess of the

simplified acquisition threshold when such evaluations would produce more useful past performance

information for source selection officials than that contained in the overall contract evaluation (e.g.,

when the scope of the basic contract is very broad and the nature of individual orders could be

significantly different). This evaluation need not consider the requirements under paragraph (g) of

this section unless the contracting officer deems it appropriate.

(e) Past performance evaluations shall be prepared for each construction contract of $750,000 or

more, and for each construction contract terminated for default regardless of contract value. Past

performance evaluations may also be prepared for construction contracts below $750,000.

(f) Past performance evaluations shall be prepared for each architect-engineer services contract of

$35,000 or more, and for each architect-engineer services contract that is terminated for default

regardless of contract value. Past performance evaluations may also be prepared for architectengineer services contracts below $35,000.

(g) Past performance evaluations shall include an assessment of the contractor's-

(1) Performance against, and efforts to achieve, the goals identified in the small business

subcontracting plan when the contract includes the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan; and

(2) Reduced or untimely payments (as defined in 19.701), made to small business subcontractors,

determined by the contracting officer to be unjustified. The contracting officer shall-

(i) Consider and evaluate a contractor's written explanation for a reduced or an untimely payment

when determining whether the reduced or untimely payment is justified; and

(ii) Determine that a history of unjustified reduced or untimely payments has occurred when the

contractor has reported three or more occasions of unjustified reduced or untimely payments under
a single contract within a 12-month period (see 42.1503(h)(1)(vi) and the evaluation ratings in Table 

42-2). The following payment or nonpayment situations are not considered to be unjustified:

(A) There is a contract dispute on performance.

(B) A partial payment is made for amounts not in dispute.

(C) A payment is reduced due to past overpayments.

(D) There is an administrative mistake.

(E) Late performance by the subcontractor leads to later payment by the prime contractor.

(h) Agencies shall not evaluate performance for contracts awarded under subpart 8.7.

(i) Agencies shall promptly report other contractor information in accordance with 42.1503(h).

42.1503 Procedures.

(a)

(1) Agencies shall assign responsibility and management accountability for the completeness of past

performance submissions. Agency procedures for the past performance evaluation system shall-

(i) Generally provide for input to the evaluations from the technical office, contracting office,

program management office, and where appropriate, quality assurance and end users of the product

or service;

(ii) Identify and assign past performance evaluation roles and responsibilities to those individuals

responsible for preparing and reviewing interim evaluations, if prepared, and final evaluations (e.g.,

contracting officers, contracting officer representatives, project managers, and program managers).

Those individuals identified may obtain information for the evaluation of performance from the

program office, administrative contracting office, audit office, end users of the product or service,

and any other technical or business advisor, as appropriate; and

(iii) Address management controls and appropriate management reviews of past performance

evaluations, to include accountability for documenting past performance on CPARS.

(2) If agency procedures do not specify the individuals responsible for past performance evaluation

duties, the contracting officer is responsible for this function.

(3) Interim evaluations may be prepared as required, in accordance with agency procedures.

(b)

(1) The evaluation should include a clear, non-technical description of the principal purpose of the

contract or order. The evaluation should reflect how the contractor performed. The evaluation

should include clear relevant information that accurately depicts the contractor’s performance, and

be based on objective facts supported by program and contract or order performance data. The

evaluations should be tailored to the contract type, size, content, and complexity of the contractual
requirements.

(2) Evaluation factors for each assessment shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(i) Technical (quality of product or service).

(ii) Cost control (not applicable for firm-fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment

arrangements).

(iii) Schedule/timeliness.

(iv) Management or business relations.

(v) Small business subcontracting, including reduced or untimely payments to small business

subcontractors when 19.702(a) requires a subcontracting plan (as applicable, see Table 42-2).

(vi) Other (as applicable) (e.g., trafficking violations, tax delinquency, failure to report in accordance

with contract terms and conditions, defective cost or pricing data, terminations, suspension and

debarments, and failure to comply with limitations on subcontracting).

(3) Evaluation factors may include subfactors.

(4) Each factor and subfactor used shall be evaluated and a supporting narrative provided. Each

evaluation factor, as listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be rated in accordance with a

five scale rating system (i.e., exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory). The

ratings and narratives must reflect the definitions in the tables Table 42-1 or Table 42-2 of this

section.

(c)

(1) When the contract provides for incentive fees, the incentive-fee contract performance evaluation

shall be entered into CPARS.

(2) When the contract provides for award fee, the award fee-contract performance adjectival rating

as described in 16.401(e)(3) shall be entered into CPARS.

(d) Agency evaluations of contractor performance, including both negative and positive evaluations,

prepared under this subpart shall be provided to the contractor as soon as practicable after

completion of the evaluation. The contractor will receive a CPARS-system generated notification

when an evaluation is ready for comment. Contractors shall be afforded up to 14 calendar days from

the date of notification of availability of the past performance evaluation to submit comments,

rebutting statements, or additional information. Agencies shall provide for review at a level above

the contracting officer to consider disagreements between the parties regarding the evaluation. The

ultimate conclusion on the performance evaluation is a decision of the contracting agency. Copies of

the evaluation, contractor response, and review comments, if any, shall be retained as part of the

evaluation. These evaluations may be used to support future award decisions, and should therefore

be marked "Source Selection Information". Evaluation of Federal Prison Industries (FPI)

performance may be used to support a waiver request (see 8.604) when FPI is a mandatory source in

accordance with subpart 8.6. The completed evaluation shall not be released to other than

Government personnel and the contractor whose performance is being evaluated during the period

the information may be used to provide source selection information. Disclosure of such information

could cause harm both to the commercial interest of the Government and to the competitive position
of the contractor being evaluated as well as impede the efficiency of Government operations.

Evaluations used in determining award or incentive fee payments may also be used to satisfy the

requirements of this subpart. A copy of the annual or final past performance evaluation shall be

provided to the contractor as soon as it is finalized.

(e) Agencies shall require frequent evaluation (e.g., monthly, quarterly) of agency compliance with

the reporting requirements in 42.1502, so agencies can readily identify delinquent past performance

reports and monitor their reports for quality control.

(f) Agencies shall prepare and submit all past performance evaluations electronically in CPARS at

https://www.cpars.gov. These evaluations, including any contractor-submitted information (with

indication whether agency review is pending), become available for source selection officials not

later than 14 days after the date on which the contractor is notified of the evaluation's availability

for comment. The Government shall update CPARS with any contractor comments provided after 14

days, as well as any subsequent agency review of comments received. Past performance evaluations

for classified contracts and special access programs shall not be reported in CPARS, but will be

reported as stated in this subpart and in accordance with agency procedures. Agencies shall ensure

that appropriate management and technical controls are in place to ensure that only authorized

personnel have access to the data and the information safeguarded in accordance with 42.1503(d).

(g) Agencies shall use the past performance information in CPARS. that is within three years (six for

construction and architect-engineer contracts) of the completion of performance of the evaluated

contract or order, and information contained in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), e.g., terminations for default or cause.

(h) Other contractor performance information.

(1) Agencies shall ensure information is accurately reported in the FAPIIS module of CPARS within 3

calendar days after a contracting officer-

(i) Issues a final determination that a contractor has submitted defective cost or pricing data;

(ii) Makes a subsequent change to the final determination concerning defective cost or pricing data

pursuant to 15.407-1(d);

(iii) Issues a final termination for cause or default notice;

(iv) Makes a subsequent withdrawal or a conversion of a termination for default to a termination for

convenience;

(v) Receives a final determination after an administrative proceeding, in accordance with

22.1704(d)(1), that substantiates an allegation of a violation of the trafficking in persons prohibitions

in 22.1703(a) and 52.222-50(b); or

(vi) Determines that a contractor has a history of three or more unjustified reduced or untimely

payments to small business subcontractors under a single contract within a 12-month period (see

42.1502(g)(2)).

(2) The information to be posted in accordance with this paragraph (h) is information relating to

contractor performance, but does not constitute a "past performance review," which would be

exempted from public availability in accordance with section 3010 of the Supplemental

Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-212). Therefore, all such information posted in FAPIIS will be

publicly available, unless covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of Information Act
(see 9.105-2(b)(2)).

(3) Agencies shall establish CPARS focal points who will register users to report data into the FAPIIS

module of CPARS (available at https://www.cpars.gov/).

(4) With regard to information that may be covered by a disclosure exemption under the Freedom of

Information Act, the contracting officer shall follow the procedures at 9.105-2(b)(2)(iv).

Table 42-1 -Evaluation Rating Definitions

Rating Definition Note

(a) Exceptional

Performance meets contractual

requirements and exceeds many

to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of

the element or sub-element

being evaluated was

accomplished with few minor

problems for which corrective

actions taken by the contractor

were highly effective.

To justify an Exceptional rating,

identify multiple significant events

and state how they were of benefit to

the Government. A singular benefit,

however, could be of such magnitude

that it alone constitutes an

Exceptional rating. Also, there should

have been NO significant weaknesses

identified.

(b) Very Good

Performance meets contractual

requirements and exceeds some

to the Government’s benefit.

The contractual performance of

the element or sub-element

being evaluated was

accomplished with some minor

problems for which corrective

actions taken by the contractor

were effective.

To justify a Very Good rating, identify

a significant event and state how it

was a benefit to the Government.

There should have been no significant

weaknesses identified.

(c) Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual

requirements. The contractual

performance of the element or

sub-element contains some

minor problems for which

corrective actions taken by the

contractor appear or were

satisfactory.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there

should have been only minor

problems, or major problems the

contractor recovered from without

impact to the contract/order. There

should have been NO significant

weaknesses identified. A fundamental

principle of assigning ratings is that

contractors will not be evaluated with

a rating lower than Satisfactory solely

for not performing beyond the

requirements of the contract/order.
Rating Definition Note

(d) Marginal

Performance does not meet

some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of

the element or sub-element

being evaluated reflects a

serious problem for which the

contractor has not yet identified

corrective actions. The

contractor’s proposed actions

appear only marginally effective

or were not fully implemented.

To justify Marginal performance,

identify a significant event in each

category that the contractor had

trouble overcoming and state how it

impacted the Government. A Marginal

rating should be supported by

referencing the management tool that

notified the contractor of the

contractual deficiency (e.g.,

management, quality, safety, or

environmental deficiency report or

letter).

(e)

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet

most contractual requirements

and recovery is not likely in a

timely manner. The contractual

performance of the element or

sub-element contains a serious

problem(s) for which the

contractor’s corrective actions

appear or were ineffective.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating,

identify multiple significant events in

each category that the contractor had

trouble overcoming and state how it

impacted the Government. A singular

problem, however, could be of such

serious magnitude that it alone

constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

An Unsatisfactory rating should be

supported by referencing the

management tools used to notify the

contractor of the contractual

deficiencies (e.g., management,

quality, safety, or environmental

deficiency reports, or letters).

NOTE 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend

insufficient to change the evaluation status.

NOTE 2: N/A (not applicable) should be used if the ratings are not going to be applied to a particular

area for evaluation.

Table 42-2 -Evaluation Rating Definitions[For the small business subcontracting evaluation factor,

when 52.219-9 is used]
Rating Definition Note

(a) Exceptional

Exceeded all statutory goals or

goals as negotiated. Had

exceptional success with

initiatives to assist, promote, and

utilize small business (SB), small

disadvantaged business (SDB),

women-owned small business

(WOSB), HUBZone small

business, veteran-owned small

business (VOSB) and service

disabled veteran owned small

business (SDVOSB). Complied

with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of

Small Business Concerns.

Exceeded any other small

business participation

requirements incorporated in the

contract/order, including the use

of small businesses in mission

critical aspects of the program.

Went above and beyond the

required elements of the

subcontracting plan and other

small business requirements of

the contract/order. Completed

and submitted Individual

Subcontract Reports and/or

Summary Subcontract Reports in

an accurate and timely manner.

Did not have a history of three or

more unjustified reduced or

untimely payments to small

business subcontractors within a

12-month period.

To justify an Exceptional rating,

identify multiple significant events

and state how they were a benefit to

small business utilization. A singular

benefit, however, could be of such

magnitude that it constitutes an

Exceptional rating. Small businesses

should be given meaningful and

innovative work directly related to

the contract, and opportunities

should not be limited to indirect

work such as cleaning offices,

supplies, landscaping, etc. Also,

there should have been no

significant weaknesses identified.
Rating Definition Note

(b) Very Good

Met all of the statutory goals or

goals as negotiated. Had

significant success with initiatives

to assist, promote and utilize SB,

SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB,

and SDVOSB. Complied with FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns. Met or

exceeded any other small

business participation

requirements incorporated in the

contract/order, including the use

of small businesses in mission

critical aspects of the program.

Endeavored to go above and

beyond the required elements of

the subcontracting plan.

Completed and submitted

Individual Subcontract Reports

and/or Summary Subcontract

Reports in an accurate and timely

manner. Did not have a history of

three or more unjustified reduced

or untimely payments to small

business subcontractors within a

12-month period.

To justify a Very Good rating,

identify a significant event and state

how it was a benefit to small

business utilization. Small

businesses should be given

meaningful and innovative

opportunities to participate as

subcontractors for work directly

related to the contract, and

opportunities should not be limited

to indirect work such as cleaning

offices, supplies, landscaping, etc.

There should be no significant

weaknesses identified.

(c)

Satisfactory

Demonstrated a good faith effort

to meet all of the negotiated

subcontracting goals in the

various socio-economic categories

for the current period. Complied

with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of

Small Business Concerns. Met

any other small business

participation requirements

included in the contract/order.

Fulfilled the requirements of the

subcontracting plan included in

the contract/order. Completed

and submitted Individual

Subcontract Reports and/or

Summary Subcontract Reports in

an accurate and timely manner.

Did not have a history of three or

more unjustified reduced or

untimely payments to small

business subcontractors within a

12-month period.

To justify a Satisfactory rating, there

should have been only minor

problems, or major problems the

contractor has addressed or taken

corrective action. There should have

been no significant weaknesses

identified. A fundamental principle of

assigning ratings is that contractors

will not be assessed a rating lower

than Satisfactory solely for not

performing beyond the requirements

of the contract/order.
Rating Definition Note

(d) Marginal

Deficient in meeting key

subcontracting plan elements.

Deficient in complying with FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small

Business Concerns, and any other

small business participation

requirements in the

contract/order. Did not submit

Individual Subcontract Reports

and/or Summary Subcontract

Reports in an accurate or timely

manner. Failed to satisfy one or

more requirements of a corrective

action plan currently in place;

however, does show an interest in

bringing performance to a

satisfactory level and has

demonstrated a commitment to

apply the necessary resources to

do so. Required a corrective

action plan. Did not have a history

of three or more unjustified

reduced or untimely payments to

small business subcontractors

within a 12-month period.

To justify a Marginal rating, identify

a significant event that the

contractor had trouble overcoming

and how it impacted small business

utilization. A Marginal rating should

be supported by referencing the

actions taken by the Government

that notified the contractor of the

contractual deficiency.

(e)

Unsatisfactory

Noncompliant with FAR 52.219-8

and 52.219-9, and any other small

business participation

requirements in the

contract/order. Did not submit

Individual Subcontract Reports

and/or Summary Subcontract

Reports in an accurate or timely

manner. Showed little interest in

bringing performance to a

satisfactory level or is generally

uncooperative. Required a

corrective action plan. Had a

history of three or more

unjustified reduced or untimely

payments to small business

subcontractors within a 12-month

period.

To justify an Unsatisfactory rating,

identify multiple significant events

that the contractor had trouble

overcoming and state how it

impacted small business utilization.

A singular problem, however, could

be of such serious magnitude that it

alone constitutes an Unsatisfactory

rating. An Unsatisfactory rating

should be supported by referencing

the actions taken by the Government

to notify the contractor of the

deficiencies. When an Unsatisfactory

rating is justified, the contracting

officer must consider whether the

contractor made a good faith effort

to comply with the requirements of

the subcontracting plan required by

FAR 52.219-9 and follow the

procedures outlined in 52.219-16,

Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting

Plan.

NOTE 1: Plus or minus signs may be used to indicate an improving (+) or worsening (-) trend

insufficient to change evaluation status.
NOTE 2: Generally, zero percent is not a goal unless the contracting officer determined when

negotiating the subcontracting plan that no subcontracting opportunities exist in a particular socioeconomic category. In such cases, the contractor shall be considered to have met the goal for any

socio-economic category where the goal negotiated in the plan was zero.

42.1504 Contract clause.

Insert the clause at 52.242-5, Payments to Small Business Subcontractors, in all solicitations and

contracts containing the clause at 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.