FAR 52.250-2—SAFETY Act Coverage Not Applicable.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 52.250-2 is a solicitation provision used when the Government wants to make clear that the acquisition is not being treated as a SAFETY Act procurement. It addresses whether the products or services being bought are, or are not, considered to be qualified anti-terrorism technologies under the Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act), 6 U.S.C. 441-444, and it explains the effect of that determination on the competition. In practical terms, the provision tells offerors that they cannot condition their proposal acceptance or pricing on receiving SAFETY Act designation or certification for the offered item or service. It also preserves the ability of technology sellers to seek SAFETY Act protections in other settings, outside this particular solicitation. The provision is important because it prevents offerors from making award contingent on a separate DHS SAFETY Act process and helps the contracting officer evaluate proposals on the basis of the solicitation requirements and price, not on speculative future SAFETY Act status. It also points readers to FAR subpart 50.2, which governs SAFETY Act-related procedures and policy.
Key Rules
No SAFETY Act entitlement
The Government has determined that the acquired products or services are neither presumptively nor actually entitled to a pre-determination that they are qualified anti-terrorism technologies. In other words, this solicitation is not being treated as one that carries SAFETY Act coverage or a pre-award SAFETY Act determination.
Separate SAFETY Act rights remain
The provision does not stop sellers from seeking SAFETY Act protections in other contexts. A vendor may still apply for SAFETY Act designation or certification outside this procurement, but that process is separate from award under this solicitation.
Contingent proposals are unacceptable
Proposals that make acceptance or pricing contingent on SAFETY Act designation as a qualified anti-terrorism technology, or on SAFETY Act certification as an approved product for homeland security, will not be considered for award. The offer must stand on its own without requiring a future SAFETY Act outcome.
Evaluation is based on the solicitation
The contracting activity will evaluate offers without assuming SAFETY Act status will be obtained later. Offerors should therefore price and structure their proposals based on the actual solicitation requirements, not on expected SAFETY Act benefits or protections.
FAR subpart 50.2 controls
The provision directs users to FAR subpart 50.2 for the broader SAFETY Act framework. That subpart provides the policy and procedures that govern when SAFETY Act considerations may apply in federal acquisitions.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Insert this provision when prescribed by FAR 50.206(a), ensure offerors understand that SAFETY Act status is not part of the award basis for this solicitation, and reject proposals that make acceptance or pricing contingent on SAFETY Act designation or certification.
Offeror / Contractor
Submit a proposal that is fully responsive without conditioning acceptance or price on obtaining SAFETY Act designation or certification for the offered product or service. If seeking SAFETY Act protections, pursue them separately and do not make them a prerequisite to award under this solicitation.
Government / Agency
Make and communicate the determination that the acquisition is not entitled to SAFETY Act pre-determination coverage for this solicitation, and evaluate proposals consistently with that determination and with FAR subpart 50.2.
Practical Implications
Offerors should not assume they can win the contract first and obtain SAFETY Act status later as a condition of performance or pricing; that approach can make the proposal nonresponsive or unacceptable.
Contracting officers should watch for proposal language that ties price, acceptance, warranty terms, liability assumptions, or performance obligations to future SAFETY Act designation or certification.
This provision helps keep the competition focused on the actual technical and price requirements of the solicitation, rather than on a separate DHS process that may be uncertain or time-consuming.
Vendors that believe their technology may qualify for SAFETY Act protection should pursue that path independently and early, but they should not build the solicitation response around that possibility unless the solicitation expressly allows it.
A common pitfall is confusing SAFETY Act protections with a procurement evaluation factor; this provision makes clear that SAFETY Act status is not, by itself, a basis for award in this action.
Official Regulatory Text
As prescribed in 50.206 (a) , insert the following provision: SAFETY Act Coverage Not Applicable (Feb 2009) The Government has determined that for purposes of this solicitation the product(s) or service(s) being acquired by this action are neither presumptively nor actually entitled to a pre-determination that the products or services are qualified anti-terrorism technologies as that term is defined by the Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act), 6 U.S.C. 441 - 444 . This determination does not prevent sellers of technologies from applying for SAFETY Act protections in other contexts. Proposals in which either acceptance or pricing is made contingent upon SAFETY Act designation as a qualified anti-terrorism technology or SAFETY Act certification as an approved product for homeland security of the proposed product or service will not be considered for award. See Federal Acquisition Regulation subpart 50.2 . (End of provision)