I hear all the time from individuals, You guys are not allowed to charge a commission to help us get a government contract.
So let me address it this way.
Can you pay someone a commission in exchange for helping your company obtain a federal contract? The answer–as with many questions in government contracting–is “it depends.” 
If you’re thinking about offering a commission to an employee, independent contractor, or another company to help you obtain a federal contract, you aren’t alone. During my 15-plus years as a federal government contract consultant, I helped many contractors understand the applicable rules and draft agreements to allow compliant commission-based relationships.
In this primer, I will first break down the key Federal Acquisition Regulation clause governing commissions. Next, I’ll cover a separate U.S. Small Business Administration regulation for participants in the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program. I’ll conclude by offering some tips and strategies to help negotiate and maintain a compliant commission-based relationship.
Let’s get started!
A. THE COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES
FAR 52.203-5 is called the “Covenant Against Contingent Fees.”
The FAR is absolutely stuffed with clauses, but FAR 52.203-5 is the only one using the term “covenant.” As we’ll see, FAR 52.203-5 isn’t nearly as restrictive as its name suggests.
The restrictions on commissions are set forth in paragraph (a), which reads:
(a) The Contractor warrants that no person or agency has been employed or retained to solicit or obtain this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a contingent fee, except a bona fide employee or agency. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Government shall have the right to annul this contract without liability or, to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of the contingent fee.
First things first: what exactly does the FAR mean by “contingent fee?” Does a commission arrangement even qualify?
Yes it does.
Paragraph (b) provides this definition of “contingent fee”:
Contingent fee, as used in this clause, means any commission, percentage, brokerage, or other fee that is contingent upon the success that a person or concern has in securing a Government contract.
Clearly, then, a commission falls under the scope of FAR 52.203-5.
The “covenant,” though, has a pretty big exception. While the clause starts with the presumption that contingent fees aren’t allowed, it then states, “except a bona fide employee or agency.” In my view, those seven words are the key language, opening up a large (though not unlimited) loophole: you can pay a commission, so long as the commission goes to a “bona fide employee” or “bona fide agency.”
So now you’re asking what do those terms mean?
1. Who is a “bona fide employee”?
Despite the general presumption against commissions, a contractor can give a commission to a so-called “bona fide employee.” FAR 52.203-5 defines a “bona fide employee” as follows:
Bona fide employee, as used in this clause, means a person, employed by a contractor and subject to the contractor’s supervision and control as to time, place, and manner of performance, who neither exerts nor proposes to exert improper influence to solicit or obtain Government contracts nor holds out as being able to obtain any Government contract or contracts through improper influence.
Let’s get back to FAR 52.203-5. The clause defines a “bona fide employee” as someone “subject to the contractor’s supervision and control.” Compare that to the IRS guidance, and it’s abundantly clear that an independent contractor doesn’t qualify because an independent contractor is not subject to the same level of control. 
If you’re interested in paying an independent contractor on a commission basis, don’t panic! An independent contractor isn’t a “bona fide employee” but may qualify as a “bona fide agency,” that is, a one-person business. More on that below.
A mistake contractors sometimes make is misunderstanding the scope of the term “improper influence.” It’s easy to assume that “improper influence” is limited to things like bribery and gratuities. Bribes and gifts undoubtedly qualify as an improper influence, but you’re not in the clear just because your employee won’t slip the Contracting Officer a suitcase of unmarked bills. “Improper influence” is more broadly defined as follows:
Improper influence, as used in this clause, means any influence that induces or tends to induce a Government employee or officer to give consideration or to act regarding a Government contract on any basis other than the merits of the matter.
In my experience, contractors sometimes mistakenly believe that so long as no cash or gifts exchange hands, it is fine for an employee to use his or her personal relationships to pursue federal contracts. Be wary if an employee says something like, “my girlfriend is the Contracting Officer” or “my ex girlfriend is the COR.” These types of relationships have nothing to do with “the merits of the matter,” that is, the merits of the goods or services you wish to sell.
Although it arose in a different context, a 2020 bid protest decision issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office offers a real-life cautionary tale on the potential problems posed when questions arise about whether a contract was awarded based on a personal relationship. In that case, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., NASA was forced to cancel a $650 million contract after a protester complained that a NASA official heavily involved in the procurement process had a social relationship with an officer of the awardee–a relationship that, according to the GAO, involved a weekly social gathering for “camaraderie, friendship, dinner, and . . .  competitive foosball.”
The bottom line: yes, a bona fide employee can be paid a commission to help you obtain a government contract. But before agreeing to such an arrangement, be sure that the individual is an employee, not an independent contractor, and that the individual does not propose to use improper influence–including personal relationships–to obtain contracts.
2. What is a “bona fide agency”?
FAR 52.203-5 also allows a contractor to pay a commission to a “bona fide agency.” Again, the question is–what qualifies?
The clause provides the following definition:
“Bona fide agency,” as used in this clause, means an established commercial or selling agency, maintained by a contractor for the purpose of securing business, that neither exerts nor proposes to exert improper influence to solicit or obtain Government contracts nor holds itself out as being able to obtain any Government contract or contracts through improper influence.
As with bona fide employees, bona fide agencies cannot exert or propose to exert “improper influence.” The broad definition of that term is the same as I discussed above, so watch out for relationships based on “competitive foosball” and other personal connections. A bona fide agency, like a bona fide employee, must pursue contracts based on the merits. 
But what is an “established commercial or selling agency?” The term encompasses situations in which a commission is being paid to a non-employee. Typically, that non-employee is a formal legal entity, such as a limited liability company. However, it may also include an independent contractor–someone operating as a “business of one,” also known as a sole proprietorship.
Not every entity qualifies as an “established commercial or selling agency.” The clause’s language strongly suggests that the term is meant to encompass only those entities actively engaged in the business of helping their clients obtain contracts. An entity in an entirely different line of work–like the incumbent contractor for the contract you wish to pursue–may not qualify.
Unfortunately, the FAR does not provide any additional information to assist contractors in determining whether an entity qualifies as a “bona fide agency.” Interestingly, though, the FAR used to contain additional guidance to assist contractors in determining whether an entity is a “bona fide agency.” While this language is no longer in the FAR, it still may be useful for contractors to consider, and includes:

• The contingent fee “should not be inequitable or exorbitant when compared to the services performed or to customary fees for similar services related to commercial business.” For this reason, it may be helpful for a contractor to obtain quotes from several competing agencies to make sure that the proposed agreement is reasonable in the market. 
• The agency “should have adequate knowledge of the contractor’s products and business, as well as other qualifications necessary to sell the products or services on their merits.” The focus on the merits, of course, ties back to the prohibition of improper influence. 
• The contractor and the agency “should have a continuing relationship or, in newly established relationships, should contemplate future continuity.” In other words, the government is suspicious of one-and-done contingent fee arrangements. Such arrangements are more likely to be based on a personal relationship rather than the agency’s ability to promote the contractor’s business more broadly. 
• “The agency should be an established concern that has existed for a considerable period or be a newly established going concern likely to continue in the future.” Again, this factor concerns the government’s suspicion about one-contract-only contingent fee arrangements. 
• The government will look more favorably upon the agency if it “represents the contractor in [both] Government and commercial sales.” Again, a broader business development relationship shows that the agency is legitimately engaged in that business and not using improper influence to pursue a specific contract. Of course, not all contractors even engage in commercial business, and like the other factors, this is just a consideration–not a requirement.

For better or for worse, there is no bright-line rule to allow contractors to determine whether an entity qualifies as a bona fide agency. That said, in my opinion, it is a good idea to keep these five factors in mind when developing a commission-based relationship. Below, in my “tips and tricks” section, I’ll offer some suggestions to bake some of these factors into your written agreements with selling agencies.
3. Violations of the Covenant Against Contingent Fees
A violation of the Covenant Against Contingent Fees won’t lead to a biblical “smiting,” but the consequences can still be severe. Violating the clause is a breach of contract, entitling the government to terminate for default. Additionally, the clause allows the government to “deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of the contingent fee.”
Although it isn’t specifically addressed in the clause itself, a violation could also lead to liability under the False Claims Act. FAR 52.203-5 requires the contractor to warrant (or certify) that its contingent fee arrangements, if any, are compliant. As is the case with any other representation or certification, a contractor could find itself in hot water under the FCA if the certification is untrue.
4. Covenant Against Contingent Fees: Summary 
In sum, the FAR’s Covenant Against Contingent Fees does not impose a blanket prohibition on the payment of commissions to individuals or entities helping a contractor obtain federal government contracts. Instead, the clause starts with the presumption that such arrangements are impermissible but allows them so long as the commission is paid to a “bona fide employee” or “bona fide agency.” To avoid potential problems under the clause, contractors should take steps to help ensure that their relationships qualify–something I’ll address in more detail in the “Tips” section below.
B. SPECIAL RULES FOR 8(A) CONTRACTS
The Covenant Against Contingent Fees appears in most federal contracts. However, contractors pursuing work under the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program must abide by two additional restrictions found outside the FAR, in 13 C.F.R. § 124.4. Importantly, these restrictions are in addition to the requirements imposed by FAR 52.203-5, which also applies to most 8(a) contracts. 
First, the SBA requires that any commission related to an 8(a) contract (or, more broadly, to the 8(a) Program itself) be “reasonable.”
The compensation received by any packager, agent or representative of an 8(a) applicant or Participant for assisting the applicant in obtaining 8(a) certification or for assisting the Participant in obtaining 8(a) contracts, or any other assistance to support program participation, must be reasonable in light of the service(s) performed by the packager, agent or representative.
Unfortunately, the SBA provides no formal guidance to assist contractors in understanding when a fee is, or is not, reasonable. Obtaining multiple quotes may help establish that a fee is market-based. The best way to ensure compliance, however, is to check with the 8(a) company’s SBA representative. 
Second, the SBA regulations prohibit a common commission structure. The regulations state:
In assisting [an 8(a) Program] Participant obtain one or more 8(a) contracts, a packager, agent or representative cannot receive a fee that is a percentage of the gross contract value.
This prohibition can cause trouble for 8(a) companies because many (and in my experience, most) people and entities who assist companies in obtaining contracts expect to be paid a percentage of the gross value. Such arrangements are acceptable under the Covenant Against Contingent Fees but disallowed when the contract in question is an 8(a) contract.
Because percentage-of-gross arrangements are prohibited, 8(a) companies must find other payment structures. In my opinion, the following structures should be compliant, provided the overall amount paid is reasonable:

• A success fee, such as $10,000 for each contract successfully awarded as a result of the consultant’s efforts.
• An hourly rate for the consultant’s work. Although not a compliance matter, it is wise to put a cap on hours anytime you agree to an hourly rate. 
• A hybrid consisting of a flat monthly fee, such as $3,000, plus a success fee for each contract awarded. 
• A tiered success fee, such as $5,000 for any contract below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold and $10,000 for any contract above it. But be careful: if the tiers are too narrow (say, a new tier for each $1,000 increase in the contract price), it starts to look an awful lot like a backdoor percentage-of-profit arrangement. 
• A percentage of the profits, as opposed to a percentage of the gross. Most bona fide employees and agencies reject this structure, though, since the employee or agency does not control the contract’s profitability.

If there is any doubt whether a proposed fee structure is compliant, an 8(a) company should consult its SBA representative–before signing on the dotted line. 
C. A FEW TIPS
In my career as a federal government contract consultant, I have helped draft and negotiate many agreements for clients as a bona fide agency. Here are a few tips, tricks, and suggestions for contractors considering commission-based relationships:

• An agency will often send the contractor a proposed agreement to formalize the relationship. Do not assume that the proposed agreement is up to snuff when it comes to complying with FAR 52.203-5 and 13 C.F.R. § 124.4. Maybe it’s just me, but in my experience, the majority of agreements I reviewed from selling agencies were poorly written and had no language specifically intended to aid in FAR and SBA compliance. You should review those documents closely, and if your resources allow, consider asking an experienced government contracts attorney to take a look. 
• Ask the employee or agency to certify that they meet the requirements of FAR 52.203-5. A statement like, “Consultant represents and certifies that it is a bona fide agency, as the term is defined in FAR 52.203-5,” can help protect you by shifting some of the compliance burden to the employee or agency. In the event the government audits the relationship, you now have the argument, “they told me they complied.” 
• Similarly, include language in the agreement prohibiting the employee or agent from using improper influence. This statement might read something like, “Consultant agrees that, in the performance of the services contemplated by this agreement, it will neither exert nor propose to exert improper influence, as the term is defined in FAR 52.203-5.”
• Make the employee or agency put its money where its mouth is by including an indemnity provision, under which the employee or agency agrees to indemnify the contractor for any liabilities, claims, etc. associated with a violation or alleged violation of FAR 52.203-5 or 13 C.F.R. § 124.4.
• Remember that an independent contractor is not a bona fide employee. You should negotiate an agreement with such a person as a bona fide agency instead. 
• If possible, get multiple quotes before signing a deal. This helps ensure that the arrangement passes muster under the Covenant Against Contingent Fees (and 13 C.F.R. § 124.4 if 8(a) contracts are involved). Of course, it also helps make sure you’re getting a fair price! 

D. SOME FINAL WORDS
Contrary to a common misconception, it is not per se impermissible to pay a commission to an individual or entity in exchange for helping your company obtain federal government contracts. The reality is much more nuanced and depends on whether the relationship complies with FAR 52.203-4, and in some cases, 13 C.F.R. § 124.4. Keep this primer in mind, and if possible, seek individualized legal assistance from an experienced government contracts attorney, and you’ll be on your way to a compliant commission-based relationship.
 
Disclaimer:
Nothing contained in this article is to be considered as legal advice for specific cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. This article is intended for educational and information purposes only. 
​

So, I am sitting in front of a new client who is telling me about his company’s marketing efforts to the federal government and as he is explaining to me how he came about getting his GSA contract and his dismay of lack of sales.  All I could think about is the commercial with the lady showing her friends her “wall” and explaining how it helps her communicate quicker with her friends. In the commercial a woman (a friend) stands up, rather frustrated, and says “That’s not how it works”, “That’s not how any of this works”. 

I could not help but have that same feeling listening to my new client. 

There always seems to be some confusion at the beginning for most federal contractors. Whether it is they believe that a SAM registration is the key to federal contracting officers finding them or perhaps that if they are registered as a small business with the SBA the government will reach out to them because they were told the government needs to spend at least 23 percent of all federal funds with small businesses.

My thought on this is to simply do your homework, find out who your customer is, research their buying habits, develop a great capability statement and make sure you market your organization to the right agencies.

Over the years I have worked with hundreds of companies that were totally lost in their journey to the federal marketplace and quite a few of these companies held GSA schedule contracts.

The incredible number of successful companies that seem to be taken by organizations that make big promises when comes to federal contracting really blows me away. Then they try to go it alone, bidding, submitting proposals, attending trade shows only to be met with frustration.

For the most part these were companies that had a high level of success in the B2B/B2C marketplace.  And for one reason or another they decided to pursue the federal marketplace.  And for those of us who live and breathe federal contracting we just can’t blame them for wanting in, but  what I cannot get my head around is how these successful organizations get taken by companies charging $600.00 for a SAM registration and/or $20,000.00 for a GSA contract. 

Now I am not saying that there is no value in having someone prepare your GSA contract, so before all you GSA Schedule holders and GSA Marketers start with the negative replies let me explain.  These companies that I am talking about that were successful in the B2B world did things right.  They developed exceptional marketing plans and they executed on those plans.  But for the most part, when it came to the pursuit of the federal marketplace they had unrealistic goals, an inexperienced staff, an insufficient budget and no real marketing strategy. 

They believed that if they had a professional organization handle their registrations and contract proposals their company would just walk into the Promised Land.  These companies have told me stories of organizations promising to market their company to the “buyers of their products” which, when it came down to it, only meant that they were emailing the companies capability statement out to their data base of contracting officers.  

Really, did these companies believe that the “build a relationship model” that had served them so well in the private sector was not going to be important in the public sector?  Don’t get me wrong, I get it, you don’t know what you don’t know.  

Are the folks at these “registration” organizations that use websites that try to look official and have words like Federal and Government in their names, just trying to convince these companies to form a belief that it is going to be that easy? Small investment upfront with unlimited upside.  

This was supposed to be a simple blog post but I fear it has turned into a rant.  So let me just finish by saying to my small business followers... use the diligence you used to build a successful company and remember, because you have the money to spend does not mean you should spend it before you are prepared for the journey to become a federal contractor.

At some point in your company’s history your organization looked at the State and/or Federal Government as a potential client.
And why shouldn't you have, after all the “government” is the largest buyer of goods and services in the country.
So, someone in your organization started filling out paperwork and online registrations.  You got your registration number or approval and you were off to the races.
Maybe you placed a few bids and maybe you won a few, lost a few. Maybe you found a solicitation that if won would take your company to a whole new level.  You spent nights and weekends preparing your proposal then an amendment came out which meant you had to re-write most of your proposal.  After countless hours and so much lost sleep you get the proposal submitted.  Of course, you had to Fed-Ex it in to make the deadline.  But, it was submitted.  And now you patiently wait. 

Finally, after waiting for weeks and hearing nothing, you see that an “Award has been made”.  You quickly click on the line, only to findout you did not win.  It takes you a while but, finally you look at the winning bid. Wait… there must be something wrong. The winner’s price is higher than yours. Somebody over there really messed up. 
So, you look for the Contracting Officer’s name and phone number. You call and try really hard to leave a polite message then ask for a return call.  After two day’s you get the call and proceed to point out the mistake and ask for your rightful award.  But wait, the C.O. tells you this was not a “Lowest Bid Win’s” but a “Lowest Technically Acceptable Price” proposal.  How did you miss that?  Maybe between doing all the other things you were tasked with during the day you just missed it and, what did that mean anyway?  Then, you realize that while you had the C.O. on the phone you forgot to ask for a debrief.  Oh, this government work is just too hard!

 If this has ever happened to you I hope you can laugh about it now.  And, I also hope you have not given up on having the government as a client.
If you are still interested and you want to find a partner who can help guide you through all the hills and valleys that make up government procurement, please give M3 Government Services a call.  And let’s talk about how we can help you achieve that original goal.