Clauses · FAR · Small business, labor and socioeconomic · provision
FAR 52.222-22 Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports
Does the regulation require it to flow down?
No
There was never a flow-down mandate — but the provision's own text told the PRIME to collect it: 'Representations indicating submission of required compliance reports, signed by proposed subcontractors, will be obtained before subcontract awards.' That single sentence is why it sits in prime flow-down packets to this day, long after the underlying E.O. died
A clause can reach your subcontract without a mandate. Once it is in your document, it is a contract term all the same. The missing mandate is a fact about the regulation. It is not a ruling on your order.
Checked against acquisition.gov on 2026-08-05 · edition Feb 1999 — INOPERATIVE: E.O. 11246 revoked, provision removed and marked reserved by the RFO Part 22 model deviation · base v0.9.3 Read the text ↗
What it makes you produce
One item for your checklist.
Something you fill in and send back
Hours, once you know which one is missing.
The representation: whether you have participated in a previous contract or subcontract subject to the equal opportunity clause, and whether all required compliance reports were filed
FAR 52.222-22
When it is used
Legacy prescription 22.810(a)(2): a solicitation provision, inserted whenever the contract carried 52.222-26 (Equal Opportunity). Reality as of 2026-08-05: E.O. 11246 was revoked by E.O. 14173 (2025-01-21); DOL Order 03-2025 stopped OFCCP enforcement on 2025-01-24 (unconfirmed — DOL Order 03-2025 was not read: dol.gov returns 403 and the Federal Register carries no matching document); CAAC Letter 2025-01 (2025-02-15) and Supplement 1 (2025-02-18) authorized governmentwide class deviations and DoD issued Class Deviation 2025-O0003 (2025-03-04), each directing contracting officers NOT to include this provision; the FAR Council's RFO Part 22 model deviation removes it and marks it reserved. The codified FAR still prints it (FAC 2026-01) — that gap is the whole detection case.
Read closely
The provision is three unlettered checkbox statements rather than lettered paragraphs, which is why this cites the number alone. The third statement is the one that put it in prime packages: representations signed by proposed subcontractors are to be obtained before subcontract award. Executive Order 14173 revoked Executive Order 11246 on 2025-01-21; class deviations have directed contracting officers since 2025-02-15 not to include the provision or consider the representation, and OFCCP enforcement stopped under DOL Order 03-2025 on 2025-01-24 (unconfirmed — DOL Order 03-2025 was not read: dol.gov returns 403 and the Federal Register carries no matching document). The deviation notices also record that entities cannot remove the question from their SAM registration. The codified FAR still prints it. It is a pre-award instrument, so its place is a request for quotation rather than a signed order.
Source: acquisition.gov, FAR 52.222-22 and FAR 22.810 (verified 2026-08-05); CAAC class deviation findings and determination for E.O.s 14173 and 14168 (signed 2025-05-15, citing CAAC Letter 2025-01 of 2025-02-15 and Supplement 1 of 2025-02-18); HUD class deviation of 2025-05-22 (the 'do not include' list naming 52.222-22); RFO Part 22 model deviation status via the VA class deviation of 2025-11-13; DoD Class Deviation 2025-O0003 of 2025-03-04, on a secondary source (unconfirmed — the DPCAP PDF was not read: acq.osd.mil publishes no address record at all, and www.acq.osd.mil, which does resolve, fails TLS certificate verification, re-probed 2026-08-09)
This is research, not legal advice. It states what the regulation says about this clause and cites the paragraph behind it. It does not rule on your order, and it does not rule on whether a prime's markings are correct.