RFP’s NAICS Code Need Not Be Listed on Awardee’s SAM Profile

A prospective contractor is not ineligible for award merely because its SAM profile doesn’t list the solicitation’s NAICS code. In a recent decision, the GAO denied a bid protest challenging the eligibility of an awardee whose SAM profile was missing the relevant NAICS code.

In this article, I take a look at the GAO’s decision, then discuss why, despite the case law, it can be good practice for a contractor to update its SAM profile to include the NAICS codes of any solicitations it intends to bid.

The GAO's Decision: RFP’s NAICS Code Not Required in SAM

The GAO’s decision in Fidelity Contract Flooring, LLC, B-423730 (2025) involved a VA solicitation for vinyl flooring material for the VA healthcare system in the greater Los Angeles area. The solicitation was issued as an SDVOSB set-aside RFQ under NAICS code 326199 (All Other Plastics Manufacturing), with a corresponding 750-employee small business size standard.

After receiving quotations, the VA announced that VA-TRAK, LLC was the awardee. Fidelity Contract Flooring, LLC, an unsuccessful competitor, filed a bid protest challenging the award. Fidelity argued, in part, the VA-TRAK was ineligible because it did not list NAICS code 326199 in its SAM profile.

The GAO began by noting that it had addressed the same issue in two prior cases, S4, Inc., B���299817, B‑299817.2 (2007) and High Plains Computing, Inc. d/b/a HPC Solutions, B‑409736.2 (2014). In both cases, the GAO said, “our Office determined that the protester failed to identify any statutory or regulatory requirement that a firm’s SAM record must include the same NAICS code identified in the solicitation.”

The GAO then wrote that Fidelity had not offered any viable reason for the GAO to deviate from its prior decisions:

Like the protesters in S4, Inc. and HPC Solutions, Fidelity has not identified a statute, regulation, or solicitation provision that requires the agency to determine a firm’s eligibility by verifying that the solicitation’s NAICS code matches a NAICS code listed in the firm’s SAM profile. Indeed . . . the solicitation here announced that an eligible firm must “qualify as a small business concern under the size standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the contract and be listed as an SDVOSB participant in the SBA certification database[.]” The record demonstrates that VA-TRAK complied with this requirement. In this regard, the agency confirmed that VA-TRAK was listed in the SBA certification database as a certified SDVOSB participant. In addition, the representations and certifications in VA-TRAK’s SAM profile note that VA-TRAK is a qualified SDVOSB contractor--certifying as small under NAICS standards as low as 150 employees, which is 600 employees fewer than the 750-employee size standard applicable to NAICS code 326199.  Accordingly, consistent with VAAR clause 852.219-73 and applicable VAAR requirements, we conclude that the VA reasonably confirmed VA-TRAK’s eligibility and properly proceeded with the award.

In a footnote, the GAO added:

[E]ven if solicitation language specifically required vendors to list the applicable NAICS code in their SAM profiles, our Office has previously stated that for an otherwise eligible awardee, the omission of the applicable NAICS code from [the awardee’s] SAM registration was a minor informality, at most, that could be waived.

In other words, the VA could have made the award even if the solicitation had expressly required VA-TRAK to list NAICS code 326199 because the VA would be entitled to waive this minor omission.

The Legal Landscape Versus Best Practices

The Fidelity decision is clear: a prospective contractor ordinarily need not list the RFP’s NAICS code on its SAM profile to be eligible for a contract. However, just because a prospective contractor probably can get away with omitting the RFP’s NAICS code doesn’t mean that it’s a wise move.

I say “probably” because my retired-govcon-attorney brain came up with a couple hypothetical scenarios in which a missing-NAICS argument could, potentially, have legs in a protest.

Fidelity raised one itself: that the omission of the RFP’s NAICS code was evidence that VA-TRAK did not “normally sell[] the type of item being supplied,” which is a requirement to qualify as a nonmanufacturer under the SBA’s regulations at 13 C.F.R. 121.406(b). The GAO dismissed this argument as untimely and noted that it was also filed in the wrong forum: the SBA, not the GAO, determines nonmanufacturer rule compliance. It’s possible that Fidelity’s protest would have gone differently had it not made these procedural mistakes.

I also wonder what would have happened if the VA hadn’t had other evidence that VA-TRAK was a small business under the 750-employee size standard. For example, what if the only small business certifications on VA-TRAK’s SAM profile related to NAICS codes with 1,000-employee size standards? It’s possible that the VA would have felt compelled to reject VA-TRAK’s offer for lack of a small business size certification valid under a 750-employee standard.

Outside the hypothetical, if rather unlikely, legal risks, there are other reasons I think contractors should strongly consider updating their SAM profiles to include the NAICS codes of any solicitations they’re intending to bid, including:

• Adding the RFP’s NAICS code to SAM will help ensure that contracting officials discover the contractor when they are conducting market research for similar procurements. Being discovered, in turn, can influence whether an acquisition is set-aside for small businesses or a subcategory of small businesses, such as 8(a) or SDVOSB, under the “rule of two.”
• Adding the RFP’s NAICS code could lead to future sole source opportunities for contractors with 8(a), SDVOSB/VOSB, HUBZone or WOSB/SDVOSB certifications. For example, I know a HUBZone contractor who was approached, out of the blue, by an agency seeking a HUBZone-certified company to do certain work—and because this company was the only local HUBZone contractor that the agency could find with the appropriate skillset, the company ended up receiving multiple sole source contracts.
• For small businesses, adding the RFP’s NAICS code could lead to subcontracting opportunities with large businesses seeking to comply with their subcontracting plans. Like government contracting officials, Small Business Liaison Officers may use SAM to identify and reach out to qualified small businesses.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that omitting the RFP’s NAICS code is highly unlikely to be a fatal flaw from a legal perspective but is nonetheless not a particularly wise practice. In my opinion, if a contractor performs—or wants to perform—work that falls under a certain NAICS code, the contractor should list that NAICS code on its SAM profile.

A Few Final Words

“A contractor is ineligible if it doesn’t list the RFP’s NAICS code on SAM” is one of those government contracting myths that, like a T-1000, stubbornly refuses to die. Fidelity tried to handle its GAO protest without an attorney (which likely explains its procedural errors), but in my prior legal practice, I highlighted GAO’s S4 and High Plains Computing decisions to convince several contractors—who were sure they had discovered a slam-dunk ‘gotcha’—not to file similar protests. Once, I even used these cases in reverse by filing a protest on behalf of a contractor who was excluded by an agency for failing to list the RFP’s NAICS code. Fortunately, when I pointed out the GAO’s decisions, the agency took corrective action and reinstated my client in the competition.

Perhaps this article will help get the word out and help destroy this enduring myth. If so, you can call me the Arnold Schwarzenegger of NAICS codes.

In the words of Kevin McCallister, are you thirsty for more? Subscribe to this newsletter for regular government contracting insights, and join the 15,000+ professionals who follow me on LinkedIn for more frequent updates. I promise: no tarantulas, tripwires or homemade blowtorches--just lots of federal contracting news and analysis, paired with occasional jokes of dubious quality.

This GovCon Roundup LinkedIn newsletter has gone live! Please join me and Carroll Bernard of GOVOLOGY (Waypoint America) every month for GovCon Roundup Live, a webcast where Carroll and I discuss key topics affecting federal government contractors, with a special emphasis on small business matters. Follow this link to register for upcoming webcasts and find the recordings of previous episodes. GovCon Roundup Live is always free!

Looking for in-depth coverage of key government contracting topics? Check out my on-demand courses available through Govology! And as a thank you for reading this newsletter, please use promo code 25KOP for a 25% discount!

Boring but important disclaimers: The information in this article is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.