Common CPSR Myths & Misconceptions: Are You Making These Mistakes?

At SpendLogic, we work closely with government contractors who regularly undergo Contractor Purchasing System Reviews (CPSRs). During our engagements, we frequently encounter myths and misconceptions that, if left unaddressed, can lead to costly mistakes. Our mission is to share industry knowledge to help companies navigate CPSRs successfully and minimize compliance burdens. Our Guide to CPSR is the plain reference we point contractors to when these questions come up. Here are some misunderstandings we’ve recently run across:

Myth 1: The DCMA only reviews purchase orders (POs) tied to prime contracts during a CPSR.

Reality: The DCMA routinely reviews POs associated with both prime and subcontracted contracts. Confusion arises because DCMA typically targets contractors with prime contract awards exceeding $50 million, but this does not limit their CPSR scope to prime contracts alone.

Myth 2: Supporting a weak price analysis, source justification, or commerciality determination with a secondary method strengthens my case.

Reality: In practice, DCMA and Contracting Officers often focus on your weakest analysis. Instead of bolstering your position, adding extra methodologies can unintentionally highlight deficiencies and lead directly to negative findings.

Myth 3: More detailed explanations are always better; an award summary is necessary for every competition.

Reality: Detailed documentation has its place, but unnecessary complexity can backfire. For straightforward Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) competitions with clear outcomes, excessive narratives is a waste of resources and can introduce errors, increasing the risk of negative CPSR findings.