Past Performance at a Crossroads—An Update to Our “Negative-Only CPARS” Analysis

In August, we examined Congress’s push to replace CPARS’s narrative ratings with “negative-only” entries at DoD—an approach that would capture only material, verifiable adverse performance events and compute a standardized score. That proposal remains alive in the FY26 NDAA deliberations and continues to draw coverage from Federal News Network and others. (Fed Contract Pros™)

Since that post, the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) has clarified something equally consequential on the civilian side: by removing the words “for future source selection purposes” from FAR Part 42, agencies are being steered to use past-performance information across the entire acquisition lifecycle—not just in source selections. Multiple agency class deviations and official guidance now state that evaluations for contracts awarded before April 1, 2026 should be marked “source selection information,” implicitly signaling that evaluations on later awards are no longer limited to source-selection use. This is the pivot that GSA’s Jeff Koses highlighted as “opening doors” to broader, real-time use of performance evidence. (Acquisition.gov)

Those two vectors can collide. If DoD’s “negative-only” regime becomes law, CPARS entries could omit routine excellence precisely when the FAR encourages broader use of performance evidence for decisions like option exercises, award/incentive-fee determinations, and corrective-action choices. Civilian agencies may continue to produce balanced narratives; DoD components may not—creating asymmetry that complicates how evaluators and contracting officers compare records across portfolios. (Acquisition.gov)

Practically, contractors should adapt on two fronts. First, for DoD programs, assume CPARS may skew toward adverse events. Build contemporaneous, auditable proof of “what went right” into the contract file—QASP metrics, COR acceptance memoranda, award-fee board rationales, service-level dashboards, and closure of corrective actions—so lifecycle decisions have positive evidence available even if CPARS doesn’t capture it. Second, for civilian work, treat CPARS as one input among several that may now influence in-performance judgments, not merely a retrospective scorecard for a later bid. In short: curate a portfolio of official performance artifacts, not a single CPARS narrative. (Acquisition.gov)

Two additional observations since our earlier post. First, the Senate text envisions structured, categorized negative events and an automatically calculated composite score normalized for transaction count and dollars—design features that aim to reduce subjectivity but raise due-process and timing questions if disputes are pending. Second, nothing in the RFO makes CPARS public; it does, however, change the internal marking and permissible use of evaluations after April 1, 2026, and agencies are issuing local deviations accordingly. Watch for threshold definitions (what counts as “material”), verification standards, rebuttal windows, and how non-CPARS artifacts will be referenced in award- and incentive-fee determinations. (Congress.gov)

Bottom line: our original caution stands, now with greater urgency. If Congress adopts negative-only CPARS for DoD while the FAR Overhaul expands lifecycle use of performance data government-wide, the competitive edge in 2026 will belong to contractors who (1) preserve balanced, verifiable performance evidence outside CPARS and (2) translate mixed regimes into coherent narratives for evaluators. (Fed Contract Pros™)

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects publicly available sources as of November 13, 2025, and may not capture subsequent legislative or regulatory changes. Consult qualified counsel for advice on specific situations.