Sharing Incumbent Information - Where do you draw the line? in Contract Award Process Posted July 17, 2018 · Report reply 3 hours ago, C Culham said: A question first. You indicate that 52.222-17 is in the solicitation but was the same clause in the preceding task order/contracts? Also you may find this GAO decision helpful. There are probably other decisions as well that others might refer you to. https://www.gao.gov/products/D13030#mt=e-report The clause 52.222-17 was not specifically added at the order level for the previous orders, nor was it added at the BPA level (3 of the 4 orders were made under a multiple award BPA), however, it WAS included within the GSA Schedule contracts. Thank you for that GAO decision - that is helpful! 1 hour ago, Retreadfed said: Since you referenced FAR 52.222-17, I presume that the order will be subject to the SCA and contain 52.222-41. If that is the case, look at subsections (f) and (n) of that clause which might be helpful. Yes, the current contracting team believe that parts of the order are subject to SCA and include 52.222-41. Thank you for drawing my attention to (n)! Very helpful! Unfortunately, the previous BPA & orders had not been let with the understanding that SCA applied due to the computer employee exemption; however, our contracting team has since changes hands, going forward, we (the new team) have reevaluated that approach and believe that although many positions within the requirements are exempt under the computer employees rule, not all of them are exempt, so we are being careful to also address SCA going forward. Thank you all for your advice! Greatly appreciate it!