https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 1

Welcome to

Quality and Narrative Writing
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 2

Policy

Contract Effort Description

Ratings

Narratives

Helpful Hints and Resources

Points of Contact
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 3

Two Modules Within CPARS

•Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting 

System (CPARS) Module – Systems, Operations 

Support, Services, Information Technology, 

Architect-Engineer and Construction

•Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 

Information System (FAPIIS) Module

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System 

(CPARS)

Web-enabled application that collects and manages a 

library of automated contractor report cards
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 4

FAR 42.1502

• Past Performance Evaluations Prepared:

• At Least Annually

• At Time Work Under Contract or Order is Completed

• Past Performance Information Shall Be Entered Into CPARS

FAR 42.1503

• Evaluation Factors

• Technical

• Cost Control

• Schedule

• Management

• Small Business Subcontracting

• Other
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 5

FAR 42.1503

• Evaluation Ratings Definitions

• Evaluations Automatically Transmitted to Past Performance 

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

• Agencies Shall Use PPIRS Information in Source Selections

• Within 3 Years of Contract/Order Completion

• 6 Years for Architect-Engineer and Construction

• Past Performance Information Shall be Entered Into CPARS

FAR 15.304

• Past Performance Shall be Evaluated in All Source Selections 

for Negotiated Competitive Acquisitions Expected to Exceed 

Simplified Acquisition Threshold
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 6

http://www.cpars.gov/refmatl.htm

Guidance

Applicability and Scope

Responsibilities Assigned

CPARS Timeline and Workflow

Frequency and Types of Reports

Administrative Information

References

Business Sectors

Rating Definitions

Instructions for Completing a CPAR

Available at 

www.cpars.gov on 

Guidance Tab
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 7

OFPP, Government Accountability Office (GAO), and 

Department of Defense (DoDIG) Inspector General 

Reviews/Audits

• Eligible Contracts Not Being Registered in CPARS

• Performance Reports Not Being Entered in CPARS in a 

Timely Manner

•Narratives of Insufficient Detail to Show that Ratings 

are Credible and Justified

Need to improve quantity and quality of information available in PPIRS 

so that source selection officials have greater confidence in reliability 

and relevance of information there

This class will help you avoid these pitfalls.
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 8

Contract Registration

Enter Proposed 

Ratings/Narratives

Validate 

Ratings/Narratives

Contractor Comments

Review Contractor 

Comments/Close

Reviewing Official 

Comments/Close

Following AO Signature:

- Day 15: Sent to PPIRS (“Pending” if no 

CR Comments), Updated in PPIRS Daily

- Day 61: Contractor Comment Period 

Ends; Eval Returned to AO (CR Locked 

Out)

Updated in PPIRS When:

- AO Modifies/Sends to RO/Closes

- RO Closes

- “Pending” Marking Removed when 

AO/RO Closes

Process must be completed within 120 days after end of period of performance.
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 9

Complete Effort Description Identifying:

•Key Technologies

•Components

•Subsystem Requirements

•Complexity of Contract

•Acronyms

•Technical Terms

Critical to Source Selection Officials

Note Scope Changes Since Prior Evaluation
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 10

The contractor provides maintenance and 

support of VFED for the General Services 

Administration.

Sufficient? Yes or No
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 11

The contractor provides maintenance and 

support of VFED for the General Services 

Administration.

NOT Sufficient

Missing:

• Detail of Scope

• Complexity of Contract

• Key Technologies

• Definitions of Acronyms and Technical Terms
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 12

The Contractor provides maintenance and technical support for General 

Services Administration’s Very Fancy Engine Database (VFED). VFED manages 

24,000 engines and nearly 2 million serially tracked, life-limited, critical 

engine parts and components supported and maintained on a daily basis. This 

database is used for asset tracking, inventory management, tracking hours in 

flight, maintenance and repair records, warranty information, parts lists, and 

engine configuration. The Contractor is responsible for maintenance of the 

Oracle database and Apache software. VFED was developed by the previous 

incumbent. The Contractor is responsible for requirements analysis, 

upgrades, configuration management, and help desk technical support. 

Support during this evaluation period included two system upgrades and 

approximately 5000 help desk requests. 

Sufficient
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 13 Quality Schedule Cost Control Management Small Business Regulatory Compliance Other Areas
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 14

Quality

Assess Conformance to:

•Contract Requirements

•Specifications

•Standards of Good Workmanship

Are reports/data accurate?

Does the product or service meet the specifications 

of the contract?

What degree of Government technical direction 

was required to solve problems that arose during 

performance?
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 15

Schedule

Assess Timeliness of Completion Against:

•Contract

•Task/Delivery Orders

•Milestones

•Delivery Schedules

•Administrative Requirements
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 16

Cost Control

Forecasting Cost

Managing Cost

Controlling Cost

Overrun?

Underrun?

Not Required for Fixed Price Contracts/Orders
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 17

Management

Assess Integration and Coordination of All Activity 

Needed to Execute Contract

•Integration and Coordination of Activity

•Problem Identification

•Corrective Action Plans

•Reasonable and Cooperative Behavior

•Customer Satisfaction

•Subcontract Management

•Program Management

•Management of Key Personnel
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 18

Utilization of Small Business

Compliance with Terms and Conditions for Small 

Business Participation

Achievement of Small Business Subcontracting 

Goals

Good Faith Effort to Meet Small Business 

Subcontracting Goals
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 19

Regulatory Compliance

Compliance with Contract Terms and Conditions

•Contract Clause Requirements

•Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

•Compliance with Regulations and Codes

• Financial

• Environmental

• Labor

• Safety

• Reporting Requirements

• Subcontractor Payment

• Trafficking Violations

Rate in Accordance with 

Definitions in FAR 42.1503 

Table 42-1
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 20

Requirements

Enter Proposed Ratings and Narratives

•24,000 Character Limit per Evaluation Area and 

General Comments

•Current Ratings

•Changes from Past Ratings
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 21

Narratives are the Most 

Important Part of the CPAR!
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 22

Rating Definitions (FAR 42.1503 Table 42-1)

Rating Contract

Requirements Problems Corrective Actions

Exceptional Exceeds Many –

Gov’t Benefit Few Minor Highly Effective

Very Good Exceeds Some -

Gov’t Benefit Some Minor Effective

Satisfactory Meets All Some Minor Satisfactory

Marginal

Does Not Meet 

Some – Gov’t 

Impact

Serious;

Recovery Still 

Possible

Marginally 

Effective; Not 

Fully Implemented

Unsatisfactory

Does Not Meet 

Most – Gov’t 

Impact

Serious; 

Recovery Not 

Likely

Ineffective
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 23

Narrative Guidelines

Address Contractor Performance

•Recent

•Relevant

Collect Input From Entire Program/Project 

Team

Provide Reader a Complete Understanding of 

the Contractor’s Performance

Must be Accurate, Fair, and Comprehensive
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 24

Narrative Guidelines

Narrative Required for Each Rated Element

Address:

•Rating Changes From Prior Reports

•Benefit/Impact to Government

Recognize:

•Risk Inherent in Effort

•Government’s Role in Contractor’s Inability to 

Meet Requirements

Indicate Major/Minor Strengths/Weaknesses
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 25

Narrative Guidelines

Consistent With:

• Program Metrics

• Program Reviews

• Earned Value Management Data

• Award Fees/Incentives

• Certificates of Service

• Cost Performance Reports

• Quality Reviews/Evals

• Ratings

•Contract Objectives

Document Problems and Solutions

Contain Non-Personal and Objective Statements
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 26

Elements Evaluated

Quality

Schedule

Management

Regulatory Compliance
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 27

Element Evaluated: Quality

Quality – Rating: Exceptional

The Contractor is exceptional. They continue 

to provide high quality support and database 

services.

Sufficient? Yes or No
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 28

NOT Sufficient

Quality – Rating: Exceptional

The Contractor is exceptional. They continue to 

provide high quality support and database services.

Missing:

• Detail to Support Rating

• Detail to Tell Entire Story

• Supporting Documentation/Metrics
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 29

Sufficient

Quality – Rating: Exceptional

The Contractor has provided exceptional quality in support of VFED. The 

contract required a system backup and disaster recovery plan that was put 

to the test after a malicious code/virus attack. The Contractor was 

proactive with a successful recovery, implemented an innovative solution to 

prevent future attacks, and enhanced system security. The Contractor also 

initiated a system analysis identifying a security loophole previously 

overlooked at the time of database development by the previous incumbent. 

The Contractor was able to recommend a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) 

product to resolve security issues saving custom development time and cost. 

The Contractor staff assisted in conducting an analysis of alternatives, 

market research, and application acquisition package recommendations in 

finding the COTS bolt-on. The Contractor experienced report generation 

errors resulting in unscheduled downtime after a three week period, 

however, they resolved the performance issue by scheduling report runtime 

during times of minimal system usage and optimized the reports to require 

less memory.
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 30

Element Evaluated: Schedule

Schedule – Rating: Very Good

In our opinion, the Contractor has done really well in terms of 

schedule. The Systems Security Manager, Jack Jones, is pleasant 

and easy to work with. He adapts to our schedule changes 

amazingly and never complains. He also went above and beyond 

and assembled our smart board and projector without charging 

the Government and he continued to meet all the contract 

objectives in the interim. Great job!

Sufficient? Yes or No
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 31

NOT Sufficient

Schedule – Rating: Very Good

In our opinion, the Contractor has done really well in terms of schedule. 

The Systems Security Manager, Jack Jones, is pleasant and easy to work 

with. He adapts to our schedule changes amazingly and never complains. 

He also went above and beyond and assembled our smart board and 

projector without charging the Government and he continued to meet all 

the contract objectives in the interim. Great job!

Missing:

• Detail to Support Rating

• Supporting Documentation/Metrics

Additional Issues:

• Using Individual’s Name

• Outside Contract Scope

• Subjective Phrases
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 32

Statements to Avoid

Outside Contract Scope

In Our Opinion

It Appeared

We Believe

We Hope

We Were Not Happy

We Did Not Like

We Think
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 33

Sufficient

Schedule – Rating: Very Good

The Contractor successfully executed the system recovery, exceeding 

requirements. Deployments of new releases were on schedule for this 

period. Per the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), the contractor had a 7 

day timeframe for full system restoration after sustaining the attack. 

However, the Contractor was able to recover and bring the system online 

within 4 days, resulting in cost and time benefits for not having to manually 

track data during the downtime. This early recovery eliminated a work 

stoppage on engine configuration management at the customer sites. The 

Contractor experienced a turnover of the senior developer during the 

development phase of the first upgrade. However, due to replacement with 

a highly skilled senior developer who was able to program more quickly and 

efficiently, the Contractor was able to bring the final release deployment 

back on track with no impact to the schedule.
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 34

Element Evaluated: Management

Management – Rating: Marginal

The Contractor has exhibited marginal management performance during this 

reporting period. The subcontract for Tier 1 Help Desk support was awarded 

4 weeks later than required during the 30 day transition period between the 

previous incumbent and the Contractor. This resulted in funding increases 

while utilizing junior developers to provide Tier 1 Help Desk support during 

the time lag. The Help Desk experienced a high turnover in personnel with 

insufficient time to adequately train new hires. In addition, per the 

contract, the maximum response time for customer calls and emails is 1⁄2 day 

for Tier 1 support. Monthly statistics provided by the Contractor indicated a 

3-4 day average. This issue was addressed in the quarterly program review 

and corrective actions to date have been marginally successful. Six months 

after the review, the Contractor implemented an aggressive recruiting and 

training program, thus reducing response time to 2-3 days. While this is a 

noted improvement, the response time is still not within contract 

requirements.
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 35

Sufficient

Management – Rating: Marginal

The Contractor has exhibited marginal management performance during this reporting period. The 

subcontract for Tier 1 Help Desk support was awarded 4 weeks later than required during the 30 day 

transition period between the previous incumbent and the Contractor. This resulted in funding 

increases while utilizing junior developers to provide Tier 1 Help Desk support during the time lag. 

The Help Desk experienced a high turnover in personnel with insufficient time to adequately train 

new hires. In addition, per the contract, the maximum response time for customer calls and emails 

is 1⁄2 day for Tier 1 support. Monthly statistics provided by the Contractor indicated a 3-4 day 

average. This issue was addressed in the quarterly program review and corrective actions to date 

have been marginally successful. Six months after the review, the Contractor implemented an 

aggressive recruiting and training program, thus reducing response time to 2-3 days. While this is a 

noted improvement, the response time is still not within contract requirements.

Contains:

• Detail to Support Rating

• Documentation/Metrics

• Corrective Actions

• Objective Language
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 36

Element Evaluated: Regulatory Compliance

Regulatory Compliance – Rating: Satisfactory

The Contractor works well on regulatory items and only 

encountered minimal issues with cost reporting. They 

always do a great job working with the Government.

Sufficient? Yes or No
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 37

NOT Sufficient

Regulatory Compliance – Rating: Satisfactory

The Contractor works well on regulatory items and only 

encountered minimal issues with cost reporting. They 

always do a great job working with the Government.

Missing:

• Detail to Support Rating

• Supporting Documentation/Metrics

Additional Issues:

• Subjective Phrases
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 38

Sufficient

Regulatory Compliance – Rating: Satisfactory

The Contractor has experienced some cost allocation issues in complying 

with the Cost Accounting Standards as required by contract clause 

52.230-2. The Contractor is required to provide funds and man-hour 

expenditure reports for preceding monthly activity by the 10th of each 

month. The Contractor’s accounting system experienced cost allocation 

issues with senior developer charges while working multiple programs. The 

Government observed an unusually high burn rate for the senior developers 

and requested a Contractor internal audit. Audit findings proved that 

during a 2 month period, hours were improperly allocated to this contract 

while the performance was conducted on a different contract. Corrective 

actions have been successful as senior developers were retrained on proper 

charging procedures, modifications were done to the Contractor’s 

accounting system to track cost with an increased level of granularity, and 

invoices were corrected to reflect actual work time. An audit performed 

within the last month verified that all contract charges are now 

appropriately allocated as required by the Cost Accounting Standards.
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 39

Utilization of Small Business Rating Definitions 

(FAR 42.1503 Table 42-2)

Rating Subcontracting 

Plan ISR/SSR Benefits / Impacts

Exceptional Exceeded All 

Statutory Goals

Accurate & 

Timely

Multiple Significant

Events of Benefit

Very Good Met All Statutory

Goals

Accurate & 

Timely

Significant Event 

of Benefit

Satisfactory Good Faith Effort 

to Meet Goals

Accurate & 

Timely

Minor Problems;

Major Problems w/ 

Corrective Action

Marginal Deficient in Meeting 

Key Plan Elements

Inaccurate;

Untimely

Significant Event 

Contractor Had 

Trouble 

Overcoming

Unsatisfactory Noncompliant; 

Uncooperative

Inaccurate;

Untimely

Multiple Significant

Problems; Liquidated 

Damages
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 40

Evaluate When Subcontracting Plan is Required

•Contracts

•Orders Against BOAs, BPAs, GWACs, MACs

•Single-Agency Task/Delivery Order When 

Contracting Officer Determines Appropriate

For Multi-Agency Indefinite Delivery Vehicles, 

Evaluated by Agency that Awarded Contract 

Unless Separate Small Business Subcontracting 

Goals in Each Order

•Includes FSS, GWACs, MACs
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 41

Element Evaluated: Utilization of Small Business

Utilization of Small Business – Rating: Exceptional

The Contractor exceeded their 27% small business goal by 2 percentage points 

and met all of the other subcontracting goals. The Contractor awarded a 

subcontract to a small business for mission critical information technology for 

this program. The Contractor conducted three outreach events which directly 

led to award of subcontracts to Service Disabled Veteran Owned small 

businesses and HUBZone small businesses. The Contractor exceeded the small 

business participation requirements of the contract that required the small 

business to be used for 25% of the R&D portion of the contract, by awarding 

50% of this requirement to small business. The Contractor submitted all 

required reports on time.

Contains:

• Quantifiable Accomplishments

• Comparison to Plan Goals

• Type of Work Performed by Small Business
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 42

Low Risk Activities

Due to Nature of Work (Low Risk Activities) May 

be Difficult to Obtain Rating Above Satisfactory

Note this Fact in the CPAR Narrative
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 43

Low Risk Activities

Quality – Rating: Satisfactory

This contract is for the collection of refuse at XXX Air Force Base located near 

Anytown, USA. As part of its services, the Contractor is required to pick up 

87 dumpsters across an approximate 30 square mile area, 12 hazardous 

waste containers, and 7 bio-hazardous waste material containers at the 

Medical Clinic located at the base. Given the nature of the services 

performed for this contract and the schedule for refuse collection, it would 

be difficult to obtain above a Satisfactory rating for performance on this 

contract. During this evaluation period, the Contractor met all of its refuse 

collection requirements on time as stated in the contract. Further, the 

Contractor ensured that all of the tops of the dumpsters were closed after 

dumping to ensure that no foreign object debris (FOD) entered the flight line 

area despite the locale being in an area prone to high winds. There were no 

incidents of improper storage or disposal of the hazardous waste or biohazardous waste material during this reporting period. Therefore, the rating 

of Satisfactory indicates performance within the requirements of the 

contract and that there were no problems encountered during this reporting 

period. 
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 44

Communication

•Throughout the Performance Period

•With Contractor and Within Government

Documentation

•Record Significant Metrics/Events Throughout the 

Performance Period

•“The CPAR Should Write Itself”

Create a Working CPAR

•Draft Online

•Draft Offline Document

• Use Copy and Paste
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 45

Prior to Performance Period

Be Up Front

•Identify Expectations

•Discuss Areas to be Evaluated

Provide CPARS Guide to Contractor and Evaluators

•During Post-Award Conference

• Prior to Annual Evaluation

Leave Yourself Flexibility

Don’t wait until the annual evaluation to 

make your contractor aware of performance!
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 46

During Performance Period

Communicate With Contractor

•Provide Feedback

Document Performance Regularly

•Status Reports

•Earned Value Management Data

•Monthly Certificates of Service

•Award Fee Evaluations

•Program Reviews

•Earned Contract Incentives

•COR Documentation
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 47

After Performance Period

Provide Contractor Draft Evaluation

Contractor May Provide Self-Assessment

Take Time to Acknowledge Contractor Concerns

•Face to Face Meetings

Document File if No Contractor Comments 

Received

•Transmittal Email

•Phone Conversation

•Efforts to Contact Contractor
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 48

Characteristics of a Lose-Lose CPAR

Use as a “Big Stick”

Solicit Out of Scope Work

Establish a Negotiation Position

Rate Government Program Manager

“Nobody Grades as Hard as I Do”

Document Performance Outside of Contract
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 49

Characteristics of a Win-Win CPAR

Fair

Relevant

Comprehensive

Repeatable Process

Timely

Accurate

Consistent
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 50

Bottom Line:

Accurate and Complete CPARs 

Help Ensure Better Quality 

Products and Services!
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 51

Customer Support Desk

• Monday – Friday: 6:30 am – 6:00 pm ET

• Commercial: 207-438-1690

• Email: webptsmh@navy.mil

CPARS Website: https://www.cpars.gov

• System Logon

• Guidance for CPARS Document

• User Manual

• Training Information

• Quality Checklist

• FAQs
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 52

Evaluate All Eligible Contracts and Orders

Complete Evaluations in a Timely Manner

Improve Detail and Quality of Narratives

•Ratings Must be Credible and Justified
https://www.cpars.gov

08/07/2016 53