FedSubK Feature: CPARS Secrets - Insider Tips for Maximizing Your Performance Ratings
FedSubK Feature: CPARS Secrets
Updated: Oct 1, 2024
Ever wonder why some contractors consistently win federal contracts while others struggle to get a single award? The secret often lies in past performance; how much they and their ratings. The system that collects and houses that information is the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, or CPARS. Ratings in this system can make or break your chances of getting that Federal contract, but most contractors and consultants in GovCon don’t fully understand how to maximize it. I’m going to give you my insider tips that can elevate your game when it comes to your CPARS ratings – and your chances at contracting success.
First let’s cover some basics…
CPARS is the Government’s official source for past performance information (FAR 42.1501(b)). This system plays two roles:
(1) Collection of data about a contractor’s performance on a specific contract, and
(2) Provides source selection officials with valuable feedback from which to evaluate contractors for possible award of future contracts.
You can see why it’s something you might want to pay attention to, right?
CPARS ratings are required generally at least annually and at the time the work under a contract or order is completed (FAR 42.1502(a)). However, there are some thresholds that apply.
- Single-agency contracts and orders exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) (presently $250,000[1]), at the contract or order level, as determined by the Contracting Officer (CO/KO).
- Multiple-agency contracts and orders (i.e., GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts, Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs), etc.) exceeding the SAT.
- Construction contracts exceeding the threshold in FAR 42.1502(e) (presently $750,000[2]).
- Construction contracts terminated for default regardless of dollar value.
- Architect-Engineer services contracts exceeding the threshold in FAR 42.1502(f) (presently $35,000[3]).
- Architect-Engineer services contract terminated for default regardless of dollar value.
- When a modification increases the total award amount over one of the thresholds above, a past performance evaluation is then required for that contract.
The CO/KO typically serves as the Assessing Official (AO) and oversees the process of the collection of past performance evaluation information from technical personnel, program managers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs), or sometimes, the quality assurance office and/or end user of the product or service. Of these officials providing input, the COR is typically assigned as the Assessing Official Representative (AOR) who enters the proposed performance evaluation and preliminary ratings into CPARS.
Evaluations are source selection information, and they must be treated accordingly and protected from release in accordance with FAR 3.104. CPARS evaluations are also considered pre-decisional in nature because they are used to support source selections on an ongoing basis. The only people that can view ratings, narratives, etc. for a specific contract are personnel with a need to know and the contractor who is the subject of the evaluation. In addition, evaluations are not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. CPARS ratings are retained and used for source selection purposes for three (3) years following the completion of the contract or order; six (6) years for Architect-Engineer and Construction contracts. But those durations aren’t as short as they might seem, and ratings can hang around longer than you might think.
For example, let’s say we have a five-year contract for services, with an annual reporting requirement. That means the Government completes a past performance evaluation every twelve months. At the end of our five-year contract, there are five evaluations entered in CPARS. The clock doesn’t start ticking on the retention period in CPARS until the contract completion date. All five of those evaluations will remain in CPARS for three years beyond the contract end date, meaning the first evaluation is actually in the system approximately eight (8) years.
That’s not anything to sneeze at if you have issues on a long contract and those issues, even after they are overcome, will likely end up documented in the annual CPARS evaluation and could follow your business for nearly a decade! Evaluations are meant to serve to motivate good performance by Federal contractors.
Let’s look at the elements of a CPARS rating and talk about the rating criteria used. This is where my secrets come into play.
The evaluation factors that must be used, as a minimum, for each past performance assessment are found in FAR 42.1503(b)(2).
Secret #1: You Must Continually Self-Assess During Performance & DOCUMENT IT
As a CO/KO and COR who evaluated contractor performance on simple orders to highly complex contracts, the specific things we are assessing about your performance don’t differ much. I’m sharing my checklist with you that I used for YEARS when evaluating contractor performance under each factor.
Technical Quality of the Product or Service
- Did the product or service meet all technical specifications, standards, and performance requirements outlined in the contract? (FAR 42.1503)
- Was the work completed accurately and without the need for excessive corrections or rework?
- Did the contractor demonstrate the ability to identify and solve technical challenges or offer innovative solutions to improve performance or outcomes?
- Was the contractor consistent in delivering a high-quality product or service over the course of the contract?
- Was the work compliant with industry, safety, and environmental standards relevant to the contract?
Cost Control (not applicable to fixed pricing arrangements)
- Was the work completed within budget?
- Did the contractor demonstrate the ability to control costs without sacrificing quality or performance?
- Did the contractor avoid cost overruns? If not, were they justified, documented, and proactively communicated?
- How well did the contractor respond to budget or funding changes?
- Did the contractor conform with standard earned value management and cost control processes?
Schedule / Timeliness
- Were products or services delivered on time according to the contractual schedule?
- Did the contractor meet interim milestones (e.g., phased deliveries, project stages)?
- If delays occurred, did the contractor take proactive measures to mitigate the impact?
- How quickly and effectively did the contractor resolve delays?
- Did the contractor’s adherence (or failure) to the schedule affect the government’s mission or project outcomes?
- If there were modifications or change orders on the contract, how effectively did the contractor adjust to revised timelines?
Management and Business Relations
- How effectively did the contractor allocate and manage personnel, equipment, and other resources to meet the contract requirements?
- How effectively did the contractor manage key personnel assigned to the project, including their experience, qualifications, and how well they meet contract requirements?
- Did contractor responsiveness to staffing changes and its ability to replace personnel impact project performance?
- How did contractor management adjust resources when project demands changed, or unforeseen issues arose?
- How well did the contractor communicate effectively and regularly with the Contracting Officer and other government representatives?
- Were timely responses to inquiries, requests for information, or problem-solving efforts received from the contractor?
- Did the contractor engage proactively with the Government to identify and resolve issues before they escalated?
- How efficiently and effectively did the contractor identify and address challenges, whether technical, operational, or logistical?
- How willing and able was the contractor to implement corrective actions quickly and professionally?
- Did the contractor comply with legal and ethical standards, including honesty, integrity, and transparency in business dealings?
- To what degree did the contractor avoid conflicts of interest and adhere to ethical practices?
Small Business Subcontracting
- Did the contractor manage subcontractors efficiently and effectively, ensuring they meet performance expectations, deadlines, and contract requirements?
- Did the contractor perform oversight of subcontractor compliance with small business utilization goals, if applicable?
- Did the contractor make a good faith effort to comply with the terms of their small business subcontracting plan, if applicable?
- Was the contractor responsive to small business subcontractors in terms of resolving disputes or concerns raised during performance?
- Did the contractor have any untimely payments to small business subcontracts?
Other (as applicable)
- Were contractor reporting requirements completed timely?
- Did the contractor have any trafficking violations, tax delinquency, failure to report in accordance with contract terms and conditions, defective cost or pricing data, terminations, suspension and debarments, or failure to comply with limitations on subcontracting?
- Did the contractor adhere to Federal, state, and local laws or regulations that apply to the specific contract and work performed thereunder, including compliance with environmental, labor laws, and safety regulations?
- How well did the contractor adhere to required security protocols, including physical security, information security, and compliance with cybersecurity regulations (e.g., NIST standards) and protect any sensitive or classified information under the contract?
- Did the contractor incorporate sustainable practices, reduce environmental impact, and use energy-efficient technologies or processes (as applicable) during performance?
Early in my career, past performance evaluations were rated on an adjective scale similar to that in FAR Subpart 42.1503 today, but there were no standardized definitions for each. Agencies, not wanting to impact companies on future contract opportunities, would often default to the highest rating even though the contractor may have only met the requirements of the contract – and meeting the requirements is what they should be doing! COs/KOs could easily tell which agencies took a hardline approach when rating contractors more than others when viewed across the board. Unfortunately, none of that could be taken into consideration during proposal evaluations and many companies missed out on contract awards simply because of disparities between how agencies applied the adjective ratings. When Tables 42-1 and 42.2 were introduced into the FAR, this adjective rating scale suddenly became standardized across all agencies. It leveled the playing field again.
Secret #2: COs/KOs are Detail Oriented People But Sometimes Need Reminders
Now that FAR clearly outlines what the thresholds are to achieve each rating, you know what you need to do to get the ratings now, right? Eh, not so fast. I’ve heard contractors complain that they deserved an “Exceptional” and being very upset that they didn’t get one. Let’s take the definition of “Exceptional” from the FAR tables and use its corresponding note to break it apart.
“Performance meets contractual requirements…” This speaks for itself. Moving on...
“…and exceeds many…”
- What contractual requirements were capable of being exceeded?
- What does that look like under each evaluation factor?
- Is it possible for each evaluation factor?
- When you believe you have exceeded contractual requirements, you MUST—
- Clearly document the requirement you exceeded and how, and
- Make the Government aware of it DURING performance AS IT OCCURS.
“…to the Government’s benefit.”
- What type of contractual requirement, if exceeded, would benefit the Government?
- Can you quantify the benefit?
- Was it a technical, schedule, or cost benefit?
- Ask the Government if it feels it received a benefit and document the feedback received, when it was received, and from whom it was received.
“The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems…”
- Did you encounter any problems in the Government’s eyes?
- Were they considered minor by the Government?
- If you aren’t sure, check in with the Contracting Officer’s Representative or other technical points of contact that oversee the work and ASK.
- Again, document the feedback.
“…for which corrective actions taken by the contractor…”
- If the Government directed corrective action, was it accomplished to their satisfaction and do you have a record of that (i.e., email, meeting minutes, etc.)?
- If you took corrective action, was it apparent to the Government?
- Did you document the actions taken for the record?
“…were highly effective.”
- Was corrective action highly effective in your eyes or the eyes of the Government?
- Did you get feedback from the Government on their perceived level of effectiveness? If not, ASK.
To justify an Exceptional rating, the Government must be able to identify MULTIPLE significant events and SUPPORT how they benefited the Government. If there is only a singular benefit, it must be of such a magnitude that it alone constitutes the Exceptional rating. Also, there can be NO significant weaknesses identified. Not as easy as you thought to get an Exceptional rating, is it?
A Very Good rating doesn’t require that much less than an Exceptional. The only difference is that only SOME contractual requirements were exceeded. Still not any easy get, eh?
Now you know in detail what COs/KOs and CORs are looking at AND must also be able to substantiate with SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
If you are keeping that documentation up yourself through self-assessments, you can share it in the form of an “Annual Contractor Self-Assessment” with the CO/KO and COR before the next rating period and just in time to refresh their memory. Chances are that info will influence their ratings and they will rely, at least in part, on your supporting documentation. Good acquisition people don’t stay in one place long and you will likely provide the new person the best record of the performance during the rating period.
Secret #3: A Satisfactory Rating Means You’ve Performed All Contract Requirements.
The very definition of a Satisfactory rating is “Performance meeting contractual requirements” with only minor problems or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract or order. There is no shame in a Satisfactory rating. There is no contractual requirement to perform over and above the contract requirements, terms, or conditions. FAR states, “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.” You cannot receive less than Satisfactory when all contract requirements have been met. Conversely, a Satisfactory rating is all you're entitled to if you don't meet and exceed at least some or many contractual requirements to the benefit of the Government, like we broke down above.
Secret #4: ALWAYS Respond to Your CPARS Ratings
I cannot stress this enough so I’m saying it again. ALWAYS Respond to Your CPARS Ratings! If you want to make a CO/KO or COR really annoyed…ignore it. Then complain about it later. Then complain when you get the next rating and it’s not any different. And then don’t respond to that rating either.
(Getting the point here?)
Assign a Contractor Representative to monitor CPARS ratings and coordinate contractor comments on the evaluation received. The CO/KO will tell you when it has been released in CPARS for your review and the system will notify you by email. Now the clock starts ticking. You will have up to 14 calendar days from the date of notification of availability in the system to submit comments, rebutting statements, or additional information.
Don’t agree with a rating?
Respectfully state why you disagree AND substantiate your rebuttal with documentation and timelines. Don’t complain or get personal no matter what. Tell your side of the story and why you see it from a different perspective. But remember, the ultimate decision on the performance evaluation and ratings received is the decision of the contracting agency.
Once finalized, copies of the evaluation including your contractor response and review comments, if any, will be retained as part of the evaluation. Tell your side of the story! These evaluations are used to support future award decisions! COs/KOs will read that entire record including your take on events. You’ll get more in the long run by respectfully telling your story than making it a scathing account of drama on the project and throwing people (Government or subs) under the bus. Don’t create a future problem that doesn’t make a difference now!
Get an awesome rating and think, “Why should I provide a response to it?” That’s part of our next and last secret…
Secret #5: Don’t Leave It to the Government’s Imagination
There are two possibilities here.
The first is, you aced your past performance evaluation, and you don’t think you need to respond. Wrong. Want to impress the Government on that future opportunity? Acknowledge the rating and talk about the ways the project worked well within your contractor team and with the Government personnel. Maybe even highlight some lessons learned. You’ll make a great impression that way and it shows you appreciate the Government’s time to provide that good rating, even when you deserved it.
The other is that you didn’t get the evaluation you thought you should, and you are silent; no response is found in CPARS. What happens when you don’t tell your side of the story in CPARS when that next opportunity comes along? Now you've left it up to the Government’s imagination and interpretation. Is that really what you want to do – let there be any doubt that you did your best? Don’t be silent. Don’t let someone assume. Tell your story yourself. It does make a difference, even with the worst ratings it matters. Stuff happens. Even the Government can appreciate that when it's reasonable.
Now you've got my CPARS secrets from my days as a CO/KO and COR! Use them well. Did any surprise you? Let us know!
[1] See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 Definitions for the current threshold after 10/1/2025.
[2] See FAR 42.1502(e) for the current threshold after 10/1/2025.
[3] See FAR 42.1502(f) for the current threshold after 10/1/2025.
.webp)
View related posts
The FAR Overhaul: Long-Deferred Maintenance on the Government's Procurement Highway
If you’ve ever worked in federal procurement — as a contracting professional, program manager, small business, prime, sub, or advisor — you’ve probably had this moment:
You’re doing your best to follow the rules…and suddenly you hit a clause, a cross-reference, or a requirement that feels like it came out of nowhere.
That’s because the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) isn’t just a set of rules. It’s a highway system. A massive, heavily traveled road network that’s been patched, expanded, and rerouted for decades — and in many areas, it’s operating with years of deferred maintenance.
Let’s talk about what that really means using the highway analogy to explain why the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul isn't as "revolutionary" as some might think.
The FAR is like a Well-Traveled Federal Highway
The FAR is the main road that nearly every federal acquisition travels on. And like any highway system:
- Everyone uses it
- Everyone depends on it
- And over time, it’s been modified in ways that made sense in the moment… but created complexity later
If you look at any highway on Google Maps it shows a rather clean route. FAR, we were taught, was set up to be the same way: requirements, procedures, clauses, and guidance. But once you’re actually “driving” that road? Well, you realize the terrain is full of twists and turns. It's more complicated than you realized.
Hidden Guardrails: The Rules You Don’t See Until You Need Them
Some of the FAR’s most critical compliance safeguards are like guardrails buried under weeds or snow. They’re there for a reason: to prevent waste, protect fairness, ensure accountability. But they’re not always easy to spot. In practice, you often discover them when someone asks:
“Did you document that?”
“Where’s your justification?”
“Why didn’t you compete this?”
“Which clause applies here?”
That’s when you realize the guardrails were present the whole time — just not visible.
Guardrails are added all the time or in the process of being fixed (via rulemaking). But all that construction can clog up traffic and make the time for arrival (contract award) continually recalculate.
Hazards & Risks: Potholes, Speed Traps, and Fog
Now add in the hazards:
- Potholes = ambiguity and unclear language
- Fog = inconsistent interpretation across offices and agencies
- Construction zones = evolving policy updates, executive orders, and new mandates
- Speed traps = protests, audits, IG scrutiny, and compliance reviews
And these hazards hit different people differently. The same stretch of FAR may feel smooth to one team and treacherous to another. That’s not because the people are bad at driving — it’s because the road is uneven.
Side Roads & Gray Areas: The Detours Everyone Knows About
Then there are the side roads. Some are official alternate routes: simplified acquisition procedures, flexibilities, exceptions, and FAR “shortcuts” that exist for good reasons. Those are the routes people take because they’ve always taken them. Indicators might be hearing yourself or your peer say --
“We’ve always done it this way.”
“That’s how the last CO handled it.”
“This should be faster.”
“It’ll probably be fine.”
Side roads aren’t automatically wrong. But they come with risks, Eventually someone asks, “Why did you go that way instead of the main route?”
Others are the gray areas -- the gravel roads and roads only the locals (experienced COs/KOs) know. Those routes have to be navigated very carefully and even the best driver can have issues even if there is less traffic. Many times they beat those on the highway to their destination, but it's only because they know where all the seen and unseen hazards are from their years driving that route.
So What Is the FAR Overhaul, Really?
Here’s the key point:
✅ It is NOT building a new road.
✅ It is NOT bulldozing the FAR and replacing it.
✅ It IS road maintenance -- the kind that should've been done years ago.
And when you have decades of deferred maintenance, it takes a lot of work to make that road appear to be what it was all along.
But that's not "revolutionary". That's finally doing the work you've been putting off because you couldn't get to it.
The County (in this case, the FAR Council, being the governing body over the FAR and its contents) could always do a little better job at maintenance than they do. But their budget and resources are low and their workload demands are very high (just take a look at the FAR Open Case Report). Sometimes it takes a new Sheriff In town (a new Administration) driving down the highway see what those too close to it should have been aware of all along. Layers upon layers of deferred maintenance.
The FAR Overhaul is best understood as freshening up the same highway.
- Clearing overgrowth = outdated and redundant material and non-regulatory clutter.
- Improving signage = clarity and usability.
- Standardizing merges and exits = better consistency and flow.
- Removing obsolete detours = non-regulatory clutter, outdated terminology, and rules that no longer serve their purpose.
And a bonus is the updated maps available for your travels (FAR Companion and Practitioner Albums)
The destination isn’t changing. But the route is FAR more functional -- see how I did that. ;)
Why This Metaphor Matters
When people hear the word “overhaul,” they often assume “Everything is changing.” But what this effort really signals is “We are fixing the road we’ve been driving on for decades.” That’s important because procurement has become more complex, acquisition timelines are under pressure, and both agencies and industry need guidance that is easier to understand, apply, and defend.
If the FAR Overhaul is the same old FAR highway with better pavement, clearer signs, fewer surprises, and, hopefully, less time lost in detours, fewer compliance collisions, and a smoother drive for everyone. The biggest difference is that now all travelers know what the locals knew all along. How to get from point A to point B in less time using an updated road system and map.
Safe travels on the FAR Highway in 2026!
The FAR Is a Highway System… and the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul Is Long-Overdue Road Work
Contract Types and Contract Vehicles: The Difference Matters
Nuances matter in Federal Contracting. Those who haven't lived the Federal Contracting experience day in and day out may believe it's minor details that don't make a difference. They don't pick up on the nuances.
For those that have lived it from behind the walls of an agency know how those nuances can make a difference between how you are perceived building relationships with primes, potential team members and, most importantly, agency decision-makers.
One nuance -- Contract Types and Contract Vehicles.
Contract TYPES are defined by the pricing structure and risk ratio between the parties. They are:
✅️ Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) to include FFP with Economic Price Adjustment (FFP w/EPA), Prospective Price Determination, Fixed-Ceiling Priced Contracts with Retroactive Price Redetermination, and those with a Level-of-Effort term (FFP-LOE).
✅️ Cost Reimbursement (or "Cost-Plus" ("CP")) to include cost sharing, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), Award Fee (CPAF), and Incentive Fee (CPIF).
✅️ Time-and-Materials (T&M) with materials on a fixed-price or cost-reimbursement basis.
✅️ Labor-Hour (L-H).
Contract VEHICLES provide the performance and administrative structure for the Contract Type. Those are:
✅️ Definitive Contracts are for specific stand-alone project(s) that fall above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT).
✅️ Indefinite Delivery Vehicles (IDVs) include Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts (IDIQs), Definitely Quantity, and Requirements vehicles. They include, but are NOT exclusively, governmentwide (GWACs), agency-specific, or GSA Multiple Award Schedules (MAS).
➡️➡️ Under the IDV umbrella falls task orders (services) & delivery orders (products) and specific instructions for who can order and how.
✅️ Agreements such as Basic Agreements, Basic Ordering Agreements (BOAs), and Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs).
➡️ ➡️ They are most often an umbrella for calls / orders (agencies call them both of these things even where FAR / RFO is specific, so it is easy to get confused), but don't have to be.
✅️ Purchase Orders (POs) (actions that fall under SAT).
✅️ Letter Contracts.
Yea, I know. FAR (even the RFO) lumps them all together as "Contract Types" in Part 16. But none stand alone. In my opinion, the FAR rewriters blew their chance to clarify this important piece of the procurement puzzle. For example:
▶️ IDIQs for services may include the ability to issue multiple types of task orders like fixed-priced, cost, T&M, and L-H under them, or only one type.
▶️ Definitive contract vehicles can be any contract type or combination thereof (hybrid) as indicated in the contract line items (CLINs) and for which terms and conditions are included.
Bottom line is -- There is not a complete understanding of a contract vehicle without defining its contract type(s).
If you see folks lumping TYPES and VEHICLES together in a discussion without explaining the difference, you know they aren't familiar with the nuances of this part of the FAR / RFO.
Follow those that are and have. Visit fedsubk.com and Expand your Federal Contracting knowledge today.
There are nuances in every FAR / RFO Part, including Part 16. We talk about why it is important to know and understand them in this marketplace.
FedSubK Feature: Be Seen! Why Your SBS Profile is So Important
UPDATED November 2025 to incorporate changes from the SBA Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) to the new SBA Small Business Search (SBS)
I’ve posted on LinkedIn a lot recently about ways to be seen as a little fish in the big pond that is the Federal marketplace. Every GovCon consultant has a take on the best entry points with agencies. My take is there is only one place small businesses MUST put their best foot forward to be quickly and easily seen by Federal buyers for potential opportunities and influence small business set-asides.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) Small Business Search (SBS) is THE PLACE you must be on your A-game.
The Small Business Search (SBS) is a database in which SBA houses information on the current pool of certificated small businesses. Presently, small businesses that do not have certifications or are self-certified, may also create a profile in this database. The SBS is used by contracting officers, small business specialists, large prime contractors, and other small businesses looking for teaming partners to find small businesses that can help meet Federal requirements and identify businesses that can help the Government (or a prime contractor) meet its small business goals. SBS is one of the first--and often only--sources used in market research by agencies to determine the numbers of small businesses able to provide products or services by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.
You can see why this might be an important place to pay attention to, eh?
Businesses have forgotten about the SBS in the last few years because SAM.gov no longer sends small business registrants directly to SBS at the end of their registration to complete the profile like it used to. I HUGE bummer. Businesses now must wait for their SAM.gov registration to be activated, then they can establish an SBA SBS account, claim their entity record, and fill in their company profile in the SBS system. Federal buyers are looking for detailed information from SBS to use as part of their market research efforts.
SBS isn’t only for market research.
Even more importantly, the SBS shows Federal buyers the status of any pending certification applications for the purpose of determining whether you are eligible to compete for a set-aside action. For example, an Economically Disadvantaged Woman Owned Small Business (EDWOSB) can still submit an offer for an WOSB set-aside even with a pending application for certification showing in the SBS. Contracting Officers often use SBS as a source to confirm the socioeconomic certification status and 8(a) program participation along with SAM.gov.
While MySBA Certifications automatically sends socioeconomic certification status to SAM.gov and updates the requisite reps and certs to reflect the correct socioeconomic status, recently it has taken weeks for that migration to occur. WOSBs and EDWOSBs have reported not seeing their correct socioeconomic status reflected in their SAM entity record.
Businesses should always check their SAM entity record to ensure that the proper status is shown within a reasonable time after receipt of an active certification status; usually within 14 business days. If the record is not accurately reflected, you can contact answerdesk@sba.gov or the SBA socioeconomic program under which your business was certified for assistance. If a Contracting Officer says that your SAM record does not reflect the status claimed, ask the Contracting Officer to check SBS for the more accurate information because of these delays.
So now let’s talk about BEING SEEN in SBS and walk through each part of the registration.
Understanding how to maximize the fields in SBS is how you can make the best possible first impression so that Federal buyers want to learn more about YOU!
The Key Words
Often businesses pluck these from thin air and over-generalized based on what they think the Government wants to see. Key words need to reflect and incorporate aspects of your primary NAICS, secondary NAICS, and what you can provide under those NAICS. If you use key words that don’t reflect your primary NAICS, you’ll leave the Government scratching their head about you. They won’t understand the message you’re sending about your company. Be consistent and specific with key words while tying into your NAICS codes in order to leave the best impression. You have 500 characters -- use them wisely.
The Website
Be sure that you include the URL for any website you have. Make it be more than a landing page. It needs to tell your story. It needs to include information about your company, what you sell, past customers, and products or solutions you provide. And most of all, it must be polished. Scrub your site hard for formatting, typos, grammatical errors, etc. Acquisition personnel using the SBS will often quickly click on the site to see just how polished it is. When it looks good, they get the impression you know your stuff and pay attention to details.
The Capabilities Narrative
This is the written equivalent of your elevator pitch. This section should include all the things you’d include in that two-minute speech. Hit hard on what your company specialized in and its core product or service areas. Show the business’s focus and avoid being all over the map by overpromising on the breadth of work the business performs.
Near the end of the capabilities narrative, list any socioeconomic certifications Why not lead with it? Because that certification is only part of your business, and it alone does not get you interest from the Contracting Officer. End with that information so the Contracting Officer can easily see it in a quick query and get your business into their market research counts.
Lastly, identify any government contract vehicle or GSA Schedule your company may hold. If you can catch their eye that you have an existing GSA Schedule or your business participates in the 8(a) program, you’ll get counted and likely get a look in terms of the Contracting Officer wanting to know more. If they need to meet a socioeconomic goal, they can see quickly. You’re helping the Contracting Officer do their job. They LOVE that! (And made another great first impression!)
SBS now also includes a field to add a link to your online capabilities statement. Use it!
“Extras” You Should Never Skip
Performance History
I cannot say this enough…if you history doing work for any Government or quasi-Government entity at any level -- Federal, State, or Local level -- list them! Don’t play the “they’ll see that when I propose” game. Showing performance history—even if it is minimal or commercial and not Government--helps. How? It proves the viability of the business and the size and types of projects you’ve completed. Those goes a long way to determining eligibility of the business based on performance on same / similar work of a same / similar dollar value (“Rule of Two” stuff – you can read more about that here).
Review Your Profile
Go out to the SBS site and use the filters for your NAICS, business name, geographic location, and business types. Make sure your show up and see how your profile measures up to your competitors. Look at their records and see what they included that you haven’t. Use the good ideas of others, but don’t plagiarize. Contracting Officers will see that and that won’t look good for either of you.
Keep Evolving
Your SBS isn’t something that you can just set and forget either. Make reviewing your profile in SBS something you do when you renew your SAM.gov registration every year. If something major changes in your business focus, NAICS, or socioeconomic status, make associated changes in SBS.
What GovCon doesn't always talk about -- The SBS Influence
When doing market research and trying to determine if an acquisition should be set-aside for small businesses, the Government is not only counting about the numbers of small businesses that claim they can do the work under a NAICS code in SBS. They are analyzing your SBS profile to see if your business could be one of the "... two or more responsible small business concerns that are competitive in terms of fair market prices, quality, and delivery" and they have “…a reasonable expectation of obtaining an offer…” from you. (There’s that pesky “Rule of Two” again.)
In other words, based on what they see, could you submit a proposal likely to win? And how does a Contracting Officer determine that? Simply put... the your answers to everything we just covered.
Completing your profile helps tip the market research scales toward a small businesses set-aside and possibly a specific socioeconomic set-aside. If you're all over the map in your SBS narrative, the Government will not consider you viable eligible contractor towards that “Rule of Two” and could possible choose to go another way with their acquisition strategy, away from a small business set-aside. Or worse, they set it aside but remember your name from the market research as one of the businesses that didn’t make their initial market analysis cut.
Influence where you can! SBS is the place where you have a lot of influence!
Have I convinced you to get out there and create or update your SBS profile yet?
While the system is no longer got the word "Dynamic" in the title, don't forget its meaning. Life is dynamic, business is dynamic, and your SBS profile should still be dynamic, too. Get it completed ASAP. You can’t afford not to.
Remember again, SBS IS WHERE FEDERAL BUYERS GO TO FIND SMALL BUSINESSES and where other small businesses go to find teaming partners and subcontractors.
Get out there, GET NOTICED, BE SEEN, and STAY DYNAMIC!
(former title: FedSubK Feature: Be A Dynamic Small Business!)
