This information prompted further analysis to better understand why the average ratings are continually dropping. For more details and information see CPARs Ratings are Continually Declining.

Notes:

How were the “Average” ratings calculated? Using a weighting average technique where Exceptional = 4, Very Good = 3, Satisfactory = 2, Marginal = 1, and Unsatisfactory = 0. The number of ratings in each year is multiplied by the corresponding weight and added together for each rating area, then divided by the total number of ratings for that year in that rating area to produce each rated area's weighted average. The same approach was used for each rated area by year to calculate the overall weighted GPA by year.

How were the “Grades” calculated? Using the weighted average (similar to school grading systems) and applying the following grade scale:  A = 4.0; B+ = 3.7 - 3.99; B = 3.3 - 3.69; B- = 3.0 - 3.29; C+ = 2.7 - 2.99; C = 2.3 - 2.69; C- = 2.0 - 2.29; D+ = 1.7 - 1.99; D = 1.3 - 1.69; D- = 1.0 - 1.29; F = 0 - .99

• In 2014 CPARS stopped tracking "Business Relations", therefore it is not included in these stats
• Pre 2014 CPARS broke down types of contracts into more categories, for this analysis UPLLC combined all contract types in similar rated areas to aggregate metrics for that rating area. For example, to get the “Management” rating, we combined a "management" related ratings that include Management, Management Responsiveness, Subcontract Management, Management of Key Personnel, and Program and Other Management.
• Pre 2014 CPARS broke down types of contracts into separate contract categories for quality, Cost, schedule, SB utilization, and Other, therefore these were aggregated together by rating type to get the ratings values for all CPARs
• Pre 2014 CPARS used a 5 point scale for the "Recommend" rating, and changed to "would" or "would not" in 2014, therefore 2010-2013 is “NA”.   