Overview
FAR Subpart 42.15 establishes the policies and procedures for recording, maintaining, and utilizing contractor performance information. It mandates that executive agencies document a contractor's record of performance—including quality, cost control, and adherence to schedules—to provide a reliable basis for future source selection decisions through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).
Key Rules
- Evaluation Frequency: Past performance evaluations must be prepared at least annually and upon the completion of work under a contract or order.
- Mandatory Thresholds: Evaluations are generally required for contracts and orders exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). Specialized thresholds apply to construction ($\ge $900,000$) and architect-engineer services ($\ge $45,000$).
- Rating Scale: Performance must be rated using a five-point adjectival scale: Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. Each rating requires a supporting narrative based on objective facts.
- Small Business Compliance: Evaluations must specifically assess the contractor’s effort to meet small business subcontracting goals and track any history of unjustified reduced or untimely payments to small business subcontractors.
- Reporting Timelines: Agencies must report specific integrity information (e.g., terminations for default, trafficking violations, or defective pricing) to the FAPIIS module in CPARS within 3 calendar days of the determination.
- Data Retention: Past performance information is generally available for source selection for three years following the completion of the contract, except for construction and architect-engineer contracts, which are retained for six years.
Responsibilities
- Agencies: Must assign management accountability for the completeness of submissions and monitor compliance using CPARS metric tools.
- Contracting Officers (CO): Responsible for preparing evaluations if no other individual is assigned. The CO also determines whether a contractor’s failure to pay a small business subcontractor was "unjustified."
- Program/Technical Offices: Provide the primary input regarding technical quality, schedule adherence, and management behavior to ensure the evaluation reflects actual performance.
- Contractors: Given a 14-day window to review evaluations and submit comments, rebuttals, or additional information before the rating becomes available to source selection officials.
- Reviewing Official: An individual at a level above the Contracting Officer must review any disagreements between the contractor and the CO regarding the evaluation.
Practical Implications
- Future Revenue Impact: Because CPARS data is "Source Selection Information," a single "Marginal" or "Unsatisfactory" rating can disqualify a contractor from winning future competitive bids across the entire federal government.
- Subcontractor Relations: The emphasis on small business payment timeliness means prime contractors must formalize their internal payment processes; three unjustified late payments within 12 months on a single contract will trigger a negative performance entry.
- Narrative Importance: Standardized ratings (e.g., "Satisfactory") are the baseline; however, the supporting narratives are critical. For a contractor to earn an "Exceptional" rating, they must prove a "singular benefit" or multiple significant events that exceeded the contract's scope to the government's benefit.
- Administrative Diligence: Contractors must be prepared to respond within the strict 14-day rebuttal window. Failure to respond promptly means the agency's evaluation will stand in the database, potentially including negative remarks that could have been mitigated through timely clarification.