For government contractors, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is one of the most influential, and often least understood, drivers of future opportunity. Strong evaluations can separate you from competitors in crowded procurements. Weak or inconsistent records can create hurdles, even if your solution is strong.

CPARS data is positioned to play an even larger role. Agencies are looking to AI-enabled tools to help streamline the evaluation process. Earlier this year, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and industry partners piloted CREPES (CORMAC’s Envisioning and Prediction Enhancing System), which used machine learning and natural language processing to compare solicitation requirements with past performance records. The tool was also able to pull out relevant narratives, compute relevance scores, and help contracting officers find the best matching past projects.

While the initial DHS CREPES pilot ended due to policy and data access challenges, the concept is proven. In the near future, past performance may be evaluated with the speed and consistency of machine learning, not just the subjectivity of human reviewers.

This shift makes one thing clear. How you manage CPARS today will directly shape your competitiveness tomorrow.

What is CPARS?

CPARS is the federal government’s official tool for evaluating contractor performance. Most agencies assess contractors across factors like quality, timeliness, cost control, and management. Scores are assigned using a five-point scale, and these ratings directly influence future awards:

• Exceptional – Performance far exceeded requirements with no meaningful issues.
• Very Good – Performance exceeded some requirements, with only minor issues.
• Satisfactory – Performance met requirements; problems occurred but were resolved acceptably.
• Marginal – Performance missed requirements in significant ways and needed government oversight.
• Unsatisfactory – Performance failed to meet requirements, with serious uncorrected problems.

Why CPARS Matters More Than Ever

Traditionally, past performance reviews are subjective. They depend on individual evaluators, their interpretation of CPARS narratives, and their available time. AI changes that equation. Instead of human subjectivity, we’re heading toward formats that reward consistency, quantification, and clarity. Contractors who prepare now will be positioned to thrive when these tools become standard.

What Contractors Can Do to Prepare

Here are five tips to strengthen your CPARS ratings and prepare for the AI-enabled future.

Prepare early and stay engaged.

Don’t wait for the review cycle. Establish regular dialogue with your contracting officer’s representative (COR), confirm expectations, and address issues quickly to build a positive track record. Ask your government stakeholders for candid input throughout performance. Acting on their feedback early demonstrates accountability and reduces the risk of negative surprises in the formal record. The CPARS ratings you receive for your project is based on the perception your customer has of your work. You should be consistently working to make sure you are improving your customer’s perception of the work you’re delivering.

Provide measurable data throughout performance.

While the government writes the CPARS narrative, you can influence it by giving your COR and program stakeholders clear, evidence-based inputs. Document and share quantifiable results such as “delivered three months early,” “achieved 98% uptime,” or “reduced program costs by $2.4M.” Supplying concrete data makes it easier for evaluators to capture your performance accurately.

Use consistent terminology in reporting and communications.

AI tools like CREPES parse language literally. If your status reports, deliverables, and communications use varied terminology, it may dilute your strengths when translated into CPARS. Standardize phrasing across projects so the records your customer relies on tell a cohesive story of your performance.

Satisfactory is not satisfactory.

To use a past performance reference to win other work in the future, CPARS ratings need to be Exceptional, or at least Very Good. The worst thing you can hear from a customer after receiving a satisfactory review is: “You’re doing a great job, that’s why I gave you satisfactory – that’s a great rating.” Make it known to your customer that in order to continue delivering quality work, you need to keep winning work, and Exceptional CPARS ratings help.

Be transparent and solution-oriented.

No major program is delivered without a few bumps along the way. Document challenges honestly and propose corrective actions. Both human evaluators and future AI tools will value a record that shows you identify risks, mitigate them, and deliver results.

Closing Thoughts

AI isn’t grading your past performance yet, but it’s likely coming soon. As policy evolves and tools like CREPES mature, your CPARS record will increasingly serve as the raw data powering faster, more objective evaluations.

For growth leaders, that means treating CPARS as a corporate discipline instead of routine compliance. Moving forward, update your internal processes to curate, validate, and communicate your performance record with the same rigor you apply to capture and proposal development. Done right, CPARS becomes a strategic asset that positions your company to win.

Looking ahead? Check out Jean Watterson’s companion article, AI Isn’t Grading Your Past Performance Yet… But It’s Arriving Fast, for insights on how tools like CREPES signal the future of past performance evaluations.