Clauses · FAR · Banned sources and products · provision
FAR 52.240-90 Security Prohibitions and Exclusions Representations and Certifications
Does the regulation require it to flow down?
No
A solicitation provision with no subcontracts paragraph; 40.205(a) speaks to the contracting officer only. Primes push it down because 52.240-91(j) makes them insert the substance of the corresponding CLAUSE in all subcontracts including commercial ones, and because their own certifications at (e) and (f) — false-certification remedies at RFO 40.204-3(b) and 40.204-4(b) include termination, suspension, and debarment for at least two years — depend on what suppliers told them. All three GDMS templates that cite it are executed purchase order terms, where a reps-and-certs provision has nothing to attach to.
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 No date designation has been issued — the model text on acquisition.gov reads literally '(Deviation Date)' (unconfirmed; read 2026-08-05). The instrument exists only under deviation: for DoD, Class Deviation 2026-O0025 (DARS tracking number), signed 2025-12-18, effective 2026-02-01, Revision 1 2026-06-29, Revision 2 2026-07-16. · base v0.9.3 Read the text ↗
What it makes you produce
2 items for your checklist, slowest first.
Something you fill in and send back2
Hours, once you know which one is missing.
The security representations and certifications — whether you provide and whether you use covered telecommunications equipment or services, the supply chain order answer after a reasonable inquiry, the Sudan certification, and the Iran representations and certifications
FAR 52.240-90(c) through (f)- FAR 52.240-90(g)
The disclosure — contract number, product or service name, the covered article or source, the vendor with CAGE code and unique entity identifier, brand, model number, item description and the reason for use
Owed when there is anything you cannot represent or certify cleanly at (c) through (f)
When it is used
RFO FAR 40.205(a): insert the provision in ALL solicitations. No threshold, no commercial or COTS carve-out stated. It replaces, in one instrument, the representations previously spread across 52.204-24, 52.204-26, 52.204-29, the Sudan certification and the Iran representations and certifications. Structure: (a) definitions borrowed from 52.240-91, (b) procedures (search SAM for 'FASCSA order' and read the solicitation for orders not in SAM), (c) covered telecommunications equipment or services representations, (d) FASCSA representation, (e) Sudan certification, (f) Iran representation and certifications, (g) disclosure, (h) executive agency review of disclosures. The provision exists only under a class deviation — it is not in 48 CFR chapter 1.
Read closely
One provision now carries what used to sit in FAR 52.204-24, 52.204-26 and 52.204-29 plus the Sudan and Iran certifications. Paragraph (b) is the procedure: search SAM for the phrase 'FASCSA order' and read the solicitation for orders that are not posted there. Paragraph (h) is the agency review of disclosures, and defense disclosures go to the office named at (g)(2). False certification remedies under the model text at 40.204-3(b) and 40.204-4(b) include termination, suspension and debarment for at least two years. It exists only under the FAR overhaul deviations — for defense, Class Deviation 2026-O0025, effective 2026-02-01 — and it is a solicitation instrument, so inside a signed purchase order there is nothing for it to attach to.
The 3 templates that name it, with the line
Source: acquisition.gov RFO model text, FAR 40.205(a), 40.203, 40.204-3, 40.204-4 and 52.240-90, at /far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-40 and /far-overhaul-part-52; DoD Class Deviation 2026-O0025 memo and Revision 2 memo (acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars, DFARS RFO class deviation index); codified FAR Part 40 and 52.240-1 for the contrast (verified 2026-08-05)
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.