CAGE Code required?

[Fara Fasat]

Situation: business unit has its headquarters at location 1 and manufacturing sites at other locations, call them locations 2 and 3. Location 1 is registered in SAM and has a CAGE Code. Business is about to sell a product to the government that is manufactured at location 2.

Question: does location 2 need to have a CAGE Code?

[Heretalearn]

It shouldn't unless it's a separate corporate/legal entity. A subsidiary can be (usually is) a separate corporate/legal entity.

[here_2_help]

"Does Location 2 need to have a CAGE code?"

Maybe. It depends.

DOD uses CAGE codes to identify a specific facility at a specific geographic location. To the extent that Location 2 will have separate KO cognizance or separate DCAA audit or separate DCMA quality assurance folks, it would seem to need a unique CAGE code. On the other hand, if Location 2 is transferring the product to Location 1 via inter-org transfer, and is willing to make Location 1 the receiver of the USG contract, then it can likely piggy-back off Location 1's CAGE code.

Hope this helps.

Edited to add: Also this affects DFARS business systems administration, since withholds (if any) are typically implemented by CAGE code. Accordingly, not having a separate CAGE code increases risk in certain areas.

H2H

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Fara Fasat:

Have you read FAR Subpart 4.18?

[Fara Fasat]

Yes, and I had determined that none of the factors there applied. However, we were told that location 2 needed its own CAGE Code because, well, because it was required.

[Guest Vern Edwards]

Well, ask whoever told you that to show you the rule on which they base their assertion.

[bob7947]

Fara:

The day before you posted your question, I added a decision on Raymond Express International, LLC B-409872.3, B-409872.4, B-409872.5: Sep 11, 2015. I thought that might have instigated your question. In that decision, GAO referred to the Gear Wizard decision.

Below are a couple of excerpts from Gear Wizzard, Inc., January 11, 2007.

"The agency's rejection of GWI's proposal was unobjectionable. DLA explains, citing Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement sect. 204.7201, that a CAGE code is a –contractor identification code— assigned to a contractor's name and address, so as to avoid any confusion regarding the entity identified. Letter from DLA to GAO, Dec. 15, 2006, at 1. CAGE codes are assigned to discrete business entities for a variety of purposes (e.g., facility clearances and pre-award surveys) to dispositively establish the identity of a legal entity for contractual purposes. See Perini/Jones, Joint Venture, B-285906, Nov. 1, 2000, 2002 CPD para. 68 at 5."

"Here, the RFP included a CAGE code for Dana's part that identified the manufacturing entity as –Dana Corp. Spicer Universal Joint Div.,— at an address in Holland, Ohio.[1] The agency states, and GWI does not dispute, that GWI's proposed parts were to be manufactured by [DELTED], not by Dana's Spicer Universal Joint Division in Holland, Ohio, and Dana has advised the agency that it is not aware of any approved sites to manufacture this part outside the United States. Agency Motion to Dismiss, exh. 2, at 2. The agency advises that [DELETED] is not included under the specified CAGE code; as a foreign entity, it would be assigned a different code, specifically, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization commercial and government entity code. Thus, while GWI appears to be proposing the specified Dana part, the information subsequently developed by the agency indicates that the part would be manufactured by [DELETED] that was not contemplated by the agency's source approval. We think this was a legitimate and reasonable basis for the agency's action here, that is, rejecting GWI's proposal as unacceptable."

Since I worked during college Summers in the 1970s at Spicers' facility in Pennsylvania where we pounded out drive shafts and universal joints, I wondered if there was any rule that went further than the home address of the legal entity. In the 1970s, the major OEM's dictated that their drive shafts and universal joints were to be produced at that facility only. The DFARS section 204.7201 mentioned in the decision was "(Removed December 11, 2014)" I didn't find anything now. I went to DLA to see if its rules asked for individual facilities in applying for cage codes but found online requests for CAGE codes and wasn't going to go further.