Exceptional CPARS Rating Possible? in Contract Administration Posted April 24 · Report reply 20 minutes ago, joel hoffman said: Five observations: 1. Table 42-1 definition of “satisfactory” would lead me to conclude that, if the supplier meets all requirements and evaluation elements without any problems, then it can be rated above “satisfactory”. “Satisfactory: Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.” ”To justify a Satisfactory rating, there should have been only minor problems, or major problems the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract/order. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. A fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be evaluated with a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract/order.” 2. When using best value as an evaluation for a supply source selection or other comparative evaluation supply competition, PP should probably be a minor factor. 3. When using past performance as an evaluation factor in a supply competition, one MUST READ the actual narratives accompanying the CPARS ratings to be able to recognize what, if any, advantages or benefits merited the assigned ratings. Just because one supplier has higher ratings than another might be meaningless if the reasons for the ratings don’t reveal any real differences. 4. The Table 42-1 ratings definitions are actually contradictory because even the very good and exceptional definitions include statements that there were some problems. For a supply contract, if there were NO problems, technically, none of the ratings would apply - although that would be meaningless. 5. It bugs the crap out of me when Government evaluators only use the assigned ratings as discriminators in trade-off comparisons between firms and when they write evaluation factors that only consider the assigned ratings - not the reasons for those ratings. Joel, The table also states that for ratings above Satisfactory that, "Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government's benefit", so imho simply delivering the product on time with no issues would not warrant anything above a Sat. However, if they delivered it early (like in the example provided by Constricting Officer) that could warrant a higher rating. I force my staff to justify to me whenever they want to give a rating above Sat how the performance was exceed to the Government's benefit. There are too many COs and CORs that simply give out an Exceptional for doing what we contract a company to do.