Congress Moves to Replace CPARS Ratings with Objective “Negative-Only” Scores

Lawmakers in both chambers are advancing parallel proposals to fundamentally change how the Defense Department records contractor performance, moving away from today’s subjective CPARS narratives toward an objective, standardized system that captures only material “negative performance events.” As reported by Anastasia Obis at Federal News Network, the House Armed Services Committee’s FY2026 defense policy bill, via an amendment from Rep. Elise Stefanik, and the Senate’s companion language would direct DoD to revise the DFARS and CPARS to exclude routine positive or neutral assessments and require contracting officers to record significant adverse events within 30 days of verification. Those events would fall into five buckets—ranging from innovation and manufacturing failures to services shortfalls and IT/cybersecurity issues—and feed an automated composite score that is normalized for a contractor’s volume of transactions and total contract value. Contractors would see their score and the underlying data and could submit rebuttals. The aim, sponsors say, is to reduce workload for contracting officers, curb inconsistent narrative ratings, and improve competition for newer firms that lack a deep past-performance record.

The proposals also require DoD to train contracting officers on identifying and documenting negative events and to update CPARS within a year so scores are calculated automatically from structured inputs. For legacy awards predating the rule change, the existing CPARS framework could continue until those contracts close out. Proponents argue that a negative-only, fact-based system will sharpen the signal in past-performance data, making it easier for source selection teams to distinguish between isolated, documented failures and clean performance histories. Yet the reforms are not without controversy. PilieroMazza partner Cy Alba cautions that concentrating only on negative entries—particularly in a regime where agencies already enjoy broad discretion—could invite more disputes and even the risk of retaliatory use of CPARS if controls are weak. He highlights a recurring due-process concern: adverse entries sometimes post while related performance issues are still being contested, potentially harming contractors before claims are resolved. That tension underscores two implementation challenges: ensuring events are truly “material” and verified, and creating guardrails so disputed matters aren’t prematurely converted into durable scores. If enacted, the measures would shift compliance and capture strategies across the defense industrial base. Contractors may prioritize rapid internal incident verification, contemporaneous evidence gathering, and formal rebuttal protocols to protect their record within the 30-day clock, while agencies will need consistent definitions and audit trails to avoid uneven scoring. For small and mid-sized firms, the move could lower barriers if their records stay clear of material negatives, but it may also heighten the impact of a single misstep. As both bills head to the floor and then to conference, contractors and procurement officials alike should track the final language—especially definitions, dispute timing, and scoring normalization—because those details will determine whether the reform achieves its promise of clarity or simply concentrates subjectivity in a new, high-stakes metric.

Disclaimer: This summary is provided for general informational purposes only and reflects the cited source at the time of writing. It may not be complete or current and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the underlying documents and qualified counsel for guidance on specific situations.