The General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) program requires pre-approved schedule contractors to publish an authorized FSS pricelist containing all the supplies and services they offer. The pricelists include the terms and conditions for each Special Item Number (SIN) on the contractors’ schedules. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.401 defines a SIN as a group of generically similar (but not identical) supplies or services intended to serve the same general purpose or function. When issuing requests for quotes (RFQs) under FAR subpart 8.4, procuring agencies may include a provision identifying a SIN and expressly limit the procurement to that SIN. In such procurements, only contractors with the identified SIN on their schedule contracts may compete to fulfill the requirement. Additionally, in service procurements, contractors may only propose labor categories (LCATs) that fall under the applicable SIN. However, procuring agencies do not always identify an applicable SIN or limit the contractors’ ability to only propose LCATs from a particular SIN. In the absence of such SIN limitations, contractors may compete for the RFQ if the quoted goods and services are available on their underlying FSS contracts without regard to a particular SIN.
In B-422384.2; B-422384.4, a decision issued on March 11, 2025, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained an incumbent contractor’s bid protest challenging the procuring agency’s decision to eliminate its quotation from consideration for award. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had issued the RFQ to acquire project management and cybersecurity compliance support services under SIN 54151HACS. The protestor proposed LCATs from a different SIN on its underlying FSS contract than SIN 54151HACS. Importantly, however, the solicitation did not limit the RFQ to this one SIN alone. Furthermore, the general language in the solicitation was insufficient to restrict vendors to only utilize labor categories that fell under the applicable SIN on their FSS contracts. Therefore, the GAO found that the RFQ permitted the protestor to propose LCATs from SINs other than SIN 54151HACS, as long as the LCATs were listed on the protestor’s underlying FSS contract. Consequently, the GAO sustained the protest, noting that while the solicitation was issued under SIN 54141HACS, the RFQ did not expressly limit the quotation to that SIN alone.
Meanwhile, in B-421561, a decision issued on April 10, 2024, the GAO determined that the procuring agency, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), had reasonably eliminated the protestor from consideration for award for quoting LCATs outside of the SIN under which the solicitation was issued. The RFQ sought to establish a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) for agile collaboration and modernization under SIN 54151S. The RFQ expressly stated that the BPA was being competed under SIN 54151S and directed vendors to only submit quotations in accordance with that SIN. Furthermore, during the Questions and Answers (Q&As), CMS advised offerors that their fully burdened proposed rates had to align with their SIN 54151S rates and prohibited offerors from proposing LCATs that did not fall under SIN 54151S. The protestor submitted its quote under a contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) with a partner firm. While the partner firm submitted rates and LCATs under SIN 54151S, the protestor did not. Consequently, the GAO denied the protest, noting that the solicitation required vendors to submit quotations with LCATs and rates under SIN 54151S and the protestor had failed to meet this requirement.
When issuing orders under FAR subpart 8.4, procuring agencies may limit the products or services being procured to specific SINs with the use of a limiting provision. In procurement for services, if the RFQ contains a provision expressly limiting the use of LCATs under a particular SIN, contractors should not only ensure that their FSS contracts contain the necessary SIN but also only propose LCATs that fall under the specified SIN. Contractors should be mindful that in the absence of an express SIN limiting provision, they may properly quote relevant products or services listed on their underlying FSS contract. When in doubt as to whether the RFQ contains such an express provision limiting the products or services to a particular SIN, contractors should raise the issue during the Q&A period and involve legal if necessary to avoid the potential for disqualification later in the procurement.
This Federal Procurement Insight is provided as a general summary of the applicable law in the practice area and does not constitute legal advice. Contractors wishing to learn more are encouraged to consult the TILLIT LAW PLLC Client Portal or Contact Us to determine how the law would apply in a specific situation.
