FAR 9.104, the responsibility determination.

FAR 9.104 is the responsibility-standards section of FAR Subpart 9.1 (acquisition.gov/far/subpart-9.1). It tells a contracting officer what a prospective contractor has to demonstrate before the CO can make the affirmative responsibility finding required by FAR 9.103(b). No affirmative finding, no award.

The section comes in three pieces. FAR 9.104-1 lists six general standards that apply to every prospective contractor. FAR 9.104-2 lets the CO impose special standards specific to the acquisition. FAR 9.104-3 sets minimum acceptability standards including a separate FAR 9.104-6 trigger to consult FAPIIS through SAM.gov on every award above the simplified acquisition threshold.

Responsibility

A status, not a score. A prospective contractor is either responsible or not. There is no "moderately responsible" middle. The CO either makes the affirmative finding or refers the small-business case to SBA under FAR 19.602.

Affirmative finding

The CO's documented conclusion that the contractor meets every applicable FAR 9.104-1 standard. It is the CO's call, not the offeror's. A determination based only on self-certification is not defensible on protest.

Simplified acquisition threshold

Currently 250,000 USD for most procurements (with higher thresholds for emergency, contingency, and certain commercial items). Triggers the FAR 9.104-6 mandatory FAPIIS review.

Certificate of Competency (COC)

For a small business, a CO's nonresponsibility determination is not final. FAR 19.602 requires referral to SBA for COC review. SBA can override the CO and certify the small business as responsible for the specific contract.

Every prospective contractor has to clear all six. The CO documents the basis for each finding in the contract file. The standards are written broadly so they reach financial, technical, ethical, and eligibility dimensions of contractor capability.

(a) Adequate financial resources

The contractor has the financial capacity to perform the contract or can demonstrate the ability to obtain it. Evidence: SEC EDGAR filings for public companies, financial statements supplied by the offeror, banking commitments, parent guarantees.

(b) Ability to comply with the required performance schedule

Considering all existing commercial and government commitments. Evidence: USAspending federal award history showing capacity at the relevant scale, contractor-supplied workload schedule, references from current customers.

(c) Satisfactory performance record

Past performance acceptable to the agency. The CO must consider FAPIIS data through SAM.gov per FAR 9.104-6, plus CPARS reports for prior federal performance, plus references. Lack of relevant performance history is not itself a basis for nonresponsibility but should be documented.

(d) Satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics

No active SAM.gov exclusions; FAPIIS records reviewed; criminal proceedings, civil settlements, administrative agreements, and contractor self-disclosures considered; DOL Wage and Hour and OSHA enforcement history factored where relevant to the work.

(e) Necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills

The contractor has the structure to perform. Evidence: SAM.gov registration with the right NAICS codes, SBA size standard fit, set-aside certification status, technical capability narrative, accounting system review when applicable (DCAA pre-award accounting review for cost-reimbursement contracts).

(f) Otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award

No statutory or regulatory bar. Includes the SAM.gov exclusion check at FAR 9.404 and FAR 9.405, Section 889 covered-equipment compliance, foreign-ownership restrictions where applicable (FAR 4.2101 covered foreign country, OFAC sanctions screening), and small-business set-aside eligibility where the solicitation requires it.

FAR 9.104-2 lets the CO impose special standards beyond the general six. Special standards are tied to the specific acquisition: a complex IT integration might require demonstrated PMP-certified project management; a hazardous-materials handling contract might require specific licenses and insurance; a cleared work statement might require a facility clearance level above the work itself. Special standards must be set out in the solicitation so offerors can address them.

FAR 9.104-3sets minimum acceptability standards. Most relevant in practice: 9.104-3(a) requires the prospective contractor to be able to obtain the resources needed for performance (subcontractors, equipment, real property) by the time of award. 9.104-3(b) covers affiliates: a known nonresponsible affiliate can taint the prospective contractor if the affiliate's nonresponsibility affects the prospective contractor's ability to perform.

Affiliate consideration

FAR 9.104-3(c) lets the CO consider the responsibility of subcontractors when their performance is critical. For small businesses, the SBA size affiliation rules at 13 CFR 121.103 also apply: an affiliate's receipts or employees can roll up to disqualify a small business from a set-aside.

Subcontractor responsibility (FAR 9.104-4)

The prospective prime is responsible for determining the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors. The agency CO does not make a separate finding on the sub. Document this in the prime's award file.

FAR 9.105 lists the information sources a CO can and should use. The pool is wide: agency records, the offeror itself, commercial sources, suppliers, customers, other contracting offices. Two pieces are mandatory rather than optional.

FAR 9.105-1 information sources

Records and experience data on the offeror that the agency already has; representations and information from the offeror; commercial sources of supplier information; suppliers, subcontractors, and customers; agency records of other contracting offices; publications and trade associations.

FAR 9.105-2 mandatory FAPIIS check

For every contract award expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, the CO must review the FAPIIS information accessible through SAM.gov. The CO must consider the information and document the consideration in the contract file. See FAR 9.104-6 for the parallel substantive requirement.

FAR 9.105-3 documentation

The CO must prepare a written determination of nonresponsibility when one is made. For affirmative findings, the documentation requirement is lighter but the basis must be available in the contract file (the agency policy, the certifications considered, the FAPIIS review acknowledgment).

Every existing DiligenceDesk reference page contributes evidence to one or more of the six FAR 9.104-1 standards. The mapping is the practical link between the abstract standards and the records a CO actually pulls.

(a) Financial resources

Public companies: SEC EDGAR 10-K and 10-Q filings (the DiligenceDesk financial pillar surfaces the most recent filing). Private contractors: financial statements supplied by the offeror; the CO requests if the dollar value warrants. For DCAA-flavored cost contracts, see also the SF1408 pre-award accounting review pattern.

(b) Performance schedule capacity

Federal performance scale signals: USAspending recipient lookup for total obligated, top agencies, and recent award size. A contractor with no awards above 100K USD does not have demonstrated capacity for a 50M USD performance schedule.

(c) Satisfactory performance record

FAPIIS R/Q records through SAM.gov (mandatory under FAR 9.104-6); CPARS reports (gated; agency-internal); USAspending award history as a public proxy when CPARS is not available.

(d) Integrity and business ethics

SAM.gov exclusions; FAPIIS criminal proceedings, civil settlements, administrative agreements; DOL Wage and Hour enforcement; OSHA inspection history. Severe willful or repeat violations are documentable bases for nonresponsibility under (d).

(e) Organization, experience, accounting, technical

SAM.gov registration with active status and correct NAICS coding; NAICS code and SBA size standard fit; set-aside certification verification when the solicitation is restricted; CMMC level verification for DoD CUI work.

(f) Otherwise qualified and eligible

No exclusions (covered in (d)); Section 889 covered-equipment compliance per FAR 52.204-25; foreign-ownership where relevant via LEI / GLEIF parent chain and OFAC SDN screening; Consolidated Screening List hits.

The six-step pre-award diligence checklist walks the same evidence in workflow order. This page is the regulatory anchor; the checklist is the operational sequence; the individual reference pages are the primary-source explainers.

The defensible workflow runs the same five steps regardless of agency. The differences are in the evidence weight, the documentation depth, and the dollar thresholds for additional checks (DCAA accounting reviews, facility clearances, etc.).

1. Identify the legal entity

Pull the SAM.gov record by UEI or legal name. Confirm Active status, current registration, correct legal entity (not a trade name). If the offeror has not registered, no FAR 9.104 finding can be made.

2. Run the mandatory FAR 9.104-6 FAPIIS check

Through SAM.gov, review FAPIIS R/Q records. Document the consideration in the contract file. The FAR is explicit that the consideration must be documented even when the records are clean.

3. Run the FAR 9.405 exclusion check

Confirm no active exclusions on SAM.gov. An award to an excluded entity requires a documented compelling-reason determination signed at the agency-head level under FAR 9.405(a).

4. Gather standards-specific evidence

Run the standards-specific evidence (USAspending performance scale, DOL/OSHA enforcement for (d), CMMC / Section 889 / set-aside certification for the eligibility cuts at (e) and (f)). Document each finding.

5. Make the affirmative finding (or refer to SBA for small-business COC)

For a non-small-business affirmative finding, document the basis in the contract file. For a non-small-business nonresponsibility determination, document and set aside the offer. For a small-business nonresponsibility, refer to SBA under FAR 19.602 for Certificate of Competency review before any award decision becomes final.

• Skipping the FAPIIS consideration documentation.FAR 9.104-6 requires the CO to consider FAPIIS data and document it. A determination that doesn't mention FAPIIS in the contract file is vulnerable on protest even if the records are clean.
• Treating self-certification as the finding.The offeror's representations and certifications in SAM are one input. The CO has to make the finding personally based on the evidence pool. A determination that just cites the offeror's certifications is not defensible.
• Missing the SBA Certificate of Competency referral on small-business nonresponsibility. FAR 19.602 is mandatory. A CO who declares a small business nonresponsible and proceeds to award without the SBA referral has bypassed a procedural protection.
• Conflating responsibility with past performance evaluation. Past performance is one input under standard (c). Responsibility is the broader status finding under FAR 9.103(b). A high past-performance rating does not automatically satisfy responsibility, and a low past-performance rating does not automatically defeat it.
• Forgetting the affiliate consideration.FAR 9.104-3(c) lets the CO consider affiliates when their performance is critical to the prospective contractor's ability to perform. SBA size affiliation under 13 CFR 121.103 is a separate analysis on small-business set-asides; both can apply.
• Treating Section 889 and CMMC as separate from responsibility. Standard (f) covers eligibility. A contractor that violates FAR 52.204-25 or that lacks the required CMMC level is not eligible to receive the award. The eligibility cut feeds the responsibility finding directly.

Where DiligenceDesk fits: the orchestrator runs the SAM.gov, FAPIIS, exclusions, ITA Consolidated Screening List, DOL, OSHA, and Section 889 checks that the FAR 9.105 and FAR 9.104-6 sources require, and produces a verdict that maps cleanly into the standards-specific evidence a CO has to gather under FAR 9.104-1.