By Mumin Bashir
CPARS rating definitions explained: what Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal and Unsatisfactory mean in FAR Table 42-1, and the proof each needs. The five CPARS adjectival ratings each rest on one test in FAR Table 42-1: did performance meet the contract, and did it exceed the contract to the government's benefit? Here is what Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal and Unsatisfactory mean, and what proof each one requires. The five CPARS adjectival ratings are Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. The CPARS rating definitions in FAR Table 42-1 turn on one test. Did performance meet the contract, and did it exceed the contract to the government's benefit? Exceptional means performance met the requirements and exceeded many of them. Very Good means it met them and exceeded some. Satisfactory means it met them. Marginal means it missed some. Unsatisfactory means it missed most, and recovery looks unlikely. The rest of the table governs proof, and proof is what decides your next bid. A rating with a thin narrative carries little weight with a source selection team. A Satisfactory backed by three documented problems reads worse than a Satisfactory with none. The Five CPARS Ratings Table 42-1 at FAR 42.1503 (https://www.acquisition.gov/far/42.1503) gives every assessing official the same five definitions. | Rating | What the definition says | |---|---| | Exceptional | Meets requirements and exceeds many to the government's benefit. Problems stayed minor, and corrective action worked very well. | | Very Good | Meets requirements and exceeds some to the government's benefit. Problems stayed minor, and corrective action worked. | | Satisfactory | Meets requirements. Some minor problems appeared, and corrective action cleared them. | | Marginal | Does not meet some requirements. A serious problem appeared, and corrective action was only marginally effective or incomplete. | | Unsatisfactory | Does not meet most requirements. Serious problems appeared, and corrective action failed. | The assessing official applies these definitions to each evaluation area on its own. One contract can hold a Very Good for Schedule and a Marginal for Cost Control in the same report. Nothing averages the areas into a single grade, and no overall score exists for a bidder to quote. Two words in the table carry most of the disputes. "Minor" separates Satisfactory from Marginal, and "serious" separates Marginal from Unsatisfactory. Neither word has a definition in the FAR, so the narrative has to carry the judgment. That is where a contractor with contemporaneous records wins an argument and a contractor working from memory loses one. What CPARS Rating Definitions Require The Note column beside each definition does the real work. Exceptional obliges the assessing official to identify multiple significant events and say how each one benefited the government. Very Good needs at le
The five CPARS adjectival ratings each rest on one test in FAR Table 42-1: did performance meet the contract, and did it exceed the contract to the government's benefit? Here is what Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal and Unsatisfactory mean, and what proof each one requires.
The five CPARS adjectival ratings are Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, and Unsatisfactory. The CPARS rating definitions in FAR Table 42-1 turn on one test. Did performance meet the contract, and did it exceed the contract to the government's benefit? Exceptional means performance met the requirements and exceeded many of them. Very Good means it met them and exceeded some. Satisfactory means it met them. Marginal means it missed some. Unsatisfactory means it missed most, and recovery looks unlikely. The rest of the table governs proof, and proof is what decides your next bid. A rating with a thin narrative carries little weight with a source selection team. A Satisfactory backed by three documented problems reads worse than a Satisfactory with none. The Five CPARS Ratings Table 42-1 at FAR 42.1503 (https://www.acquisition.gov/far/42.1503) gives every assessing official the same five definitions. | Rating | What the definition says | |---|---| | Exceptional | Meets requirements and exceeds many to the government's benefit. Problems stayed minor, and corrective action worked very well. | | Very Good | Meets requirements and exceeds some to the government's benefit. Problems stayed minor, and corrective action worked. | | Satisfactory | Meets requirements. Some minor problems appeared, and corrective action cleared them. | | Marginal | Does not meet some requirements. A serious problem appeared, and corrective action was only marginally effective or incomplete. | | Unsatisfactory | Does not meet most requirements. Serious problems appeared, and corrective action failed. | The assessing official applies these definitions to each evaluation area on its own. One contract can hold a Very Good for Schedule and a Marginal for Cost Control in the same report. Nothing averages the areas into a single grade, and no overall score exists for a bidder to quote. Two words in the table carry most of the disputes. "Minor" separates Satisfactory from Marginal, and "serious" separates Marginal from Unsatisfactory. Neither word has a definition in the FAR, so the narrative has to carry the judgment. That is where a contractor with contemporaneous records wins an argument and a contractor working from memory loses one. What CPARS Rating Definitions Require The Note column beside each definition does the real work. Exceptional obliges the assessing official to identify multiple significant events and say how each one benefited the government. Very Good needs at le