CPARS Revitalized on OASIS+ and MAPS – Will Your “Satisfactory” Ratings Become a Three-Year Liability?
February 11, 2026
Now Trending on GSA OASIS+ and Army MAPS Evaluations:
If CPARS Exist They Must be Used for Federal Past Performance
CPARS Ratings Must be Above “Satisfactory” to be Competitive
Recent government procurement policy and current major solicitations confirm a critical federal market shift: CPARS really matter (again). The two signals are now unmistakable:
If you have CPARS, you and the government must use them as evidence of your federal past performance references.
You’ll need CPARS ratings above “Satisfactory” to earn highest ‘Positive’ evaluation scores and gain the competitive edge to win awards.
CPARS Trend #1 - Mandatory Use of Existing CPARS for Federal Past Performance
In past years, many federal solicitations treated CPARS past performance references as optional and some opted for past-performance questionnaires (PPQs) instead. However, on more recent notable procurements like GSA OASIS+ Phase II and Army MAPS the “must use CPARS if they exist” trend is accelerating, changing procurement and bid/proposal strategies.
A. Using the current GSA OASIS+ Phase II RFP Section L.5.6 (Past Performance) as a good example, we see a similar RFP requirement pattern emerging:
“Only in the event CPARS information is not available for a submitted project will an Offeror be allowed to submit past performance assessments detailed in Section L.5.6.2 as a substitute for the CPARS Report. If CPARS information is available for any selected qualifying project, it must be used/submitted in support of the past performance evaluation.”
B. Similar language can be seen in the current Army draft MAPS solicitation where it is clearly stated in Section M.5.4 (Performance Quality) “If the Offeror has CPARS, the Government will utilize CPARS.” In keeping with GSA’s and Army’s lead, we expect this “default to CPARS” trend for federal past performance references to continue across the acquisition community. The impact goes beyond a single solicitation and is far reaching since if CPARS exist for past performance references, they can be seen and used for at least 3 years to evaluate a contractor’s performance (whether positive or not). Are your CPARS ready for prime-time use?
Trend #2 - Distinguishing and Scoring a higher “Positive” versus just “Satisfactory” in Past Performance Assessment Evaluation Ratings
A. Advancing a recent trend in some of the previous major GSA GWACs, the OASIS+ Phase II RFP draws a bright line between “Exceptional/Very Good” and “Satisfactory” CPARS ratings. See for example, Section M.6.6.1 - Evaluation Ratings for Past Performance Submissions where CPARS past performance assessment ratings must be greater than “Satisfactory” to attain the higher ‘Positive’ past performance evaluation rating level:
“1. A “Positive” rating will be given to an assessment with an average rating greater than “Satisfactory” (e.g., >3.0 on a 5.0 point scale) across the applicable rating elements.
2. A “Satisfactory” Past Performance rating will be given to an assessment with an average rating of “Satisfactory” (e.g. =3.0 on a 5.0 point scale) across the applicable rating elements.
With OASIS+, GSA is continuing the trend to recognize, distinguish, and assign greater weights between Positive (“superior”) and Satisfactory (“just “average”) performance assessment evaluation scores. CPARS past performance assessment ratings will be applied and rated in a similar fashion. So, GSA’s message is clear: your CPARS past performance ratings need to “above Satisfactory” to remain competitive and win contracts. Will your CPARS make the cut?
B. The recent draft Army MAPS RFP reinforces the importance of maintaining positive CPARS ratings in all evaluation elements/areas and for at least three years. The most glaring example begins in Section M.3 - Evaluation of Volume II Self-Scoring Gate Criteria - CPARS Ratings:
“CPARS will be pulled for all five (5) NAICS codes under the acquisition over the last three (3) years for the last completed assessment (the date will be calculated by the final proposal submission due date identified in this RFP.)
If five (5) or more of the element ratings are MARGINAL or below the Offeror will be excluded from evaluations.”
The RFP further highlights this point with a steep scoring gap between “Satisfactory” and “Very Good” or “Exceptional.” We see a clear distinction (and largest point advantage) for “higher than Satisfactory” CPARS Qualifying Projects (QPs) in Section M.5.4 (Performance Quality) of the draft MAPS RFP:
The Offeror will receive 3,000 points for each QP with a Satisfactory (or a combination of Satisfactory and higher) PP Rating in all CPARS/PPQ elements.
The Offeror will receive 5,000 points for each QP with a Very Good (or combination of Very Good and higher) PP Rating in all CPARS/PPQ elements.
The Offeror will receive 7,000 points for each QP with Exceptional PP Rating in all CPARS/PPQ elements.
Again it is important to note that the Army will evaluate the QPs to determine, weigh, and assign points based on each of the individual CPARS past performance (PP) evaluation element/area performance assessment ratings (Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, and Small Business Subcontracting). Finally, Section M.2 of the Army MAPS RFP also contains a clear “tie-breaker” advantage for offerors with a higher percentage of “Exceptional” and “Very Good” CPARS ratings (over “Satisfactory”).
In summary, all offeror CPARS in the five NAICS codes under the MAPS acquisition will be pulled and scrutinized. To achieve the highest past performance points, you must carefully review and ensure your submitted CPARS element/area ratings are, at a minimum, above “Satisfactory” for a competitive advantage. But also just to qualify on MAPS, you must not have five or more CPARS area/element ratings that are “Marginal” or below in any of the five NAICS codes under the acquisition. Be aware – your CPARS ratings matter and when assessing past performance, the Government knows “truth is in the details”.
Bottom Line
We are truly seeing a CPARS revival in real time. More solicitations like GSA OASIS+ and Army MAPS will require CPARS when available and be raising the “positive” past performance bar higher to “above Satisfactory” CPARS ratings to gain maximum evaluation points. This is consistent with recent Executive Orders, new RFO language and federal procurement goals which place greater emphasis on requiring contractors to demonstrate "superior" (versus “just satisfactory”) performance in order to win and keep federal contracts. If you have just received or expect to get any negative CPARS ratings soon – time is of the essence to address and repair them. Otherwise they can haunt you for at least three years. Feel free to contact me me personally if you need help or have questions on what to do.
Proactive CPARS ratings management is now a federal business competitive necessity, and when done correctly serves as a valuable corporate strategic asset. Not done (or done too late or incorrectly) will compound competitive risk and can turn into a harmful corporate long-term liability. We have the proven experience to help because we know first hand that Performance Matters! But the choice to act is yours.
We help you control CPARS ratings and narratives before they control you
Let our trusted (and discreet) CPARS experts and respected former federal contracting officials help you keep CPARS past performance ratings at the highest levels you deserve
We offer affordable proactive CPARS management solutions through CPARSradar (Enterprise CPARS Ratings Management) and GovConRx (CPARS Ratings Consulting and Urgent Care)
Contact us for more info or Schedule a free CPARS Review Session here.
Click Here to Effectively Manage All Your CPARS Ratings
Click Here to Correct, Rebut and Fix Negative CPARS