If you are a construction or trades company even considering a GSA contract, the responsible move is to stop and validate eligibility before resources are committed. GSA scope errors are not corrected midstream. They are rejected, terminated, or flagged during audit. Capitol 50 routinely sees firms spend six figures chasing a vehicle they were never eligible for. That outcome is avoidable, but only if scope exposure is assessed early. For most firms, the first step is scheduling a qualification call and free audit to determine whether GSA MAS is viable or a liability.
Construction and trades companies often assume they are automatically excluded from GSA. Others assume the opposite and proceed without confirming scope alignment. Both assumptions carry risk. The distinction is not based on company identity. It is based on how GSA classifies the work.
Construction and trades companies can be on a GSA contract, but only when their offerings qualify as commercial services or products under the GSA Multiple Award Schedule. Physical construction governed by Davis-Bacon and FAR Part 36 is excluded. The boundary is enforced through scope review, not intent.
Where GSA Draws the Line
General Services Administration does not award GSA Schedule contracts for traditional construction. New builds, structural alterations, major renovations, and projects requiring Davis-Bacon wage determinations fall outside GSA MAS authority.
Under GSA MAS and FAR Part 8, allowable scope is limited to:
- Commercial services
- Commercial products
- Ancillary labor directly supporting those services or products
Once labor resembles construction as defined under FAR Part 36, eligibility ends. That determination is made by the reviewer, not the contractor.
Why Trades Companies Misjudge Eligibility
Trades firms often define themselves by function rather than procurement classification.
Electricians. HVAC. Fire suppression. Low-voltage. Facilities crews.
Those offerings can fall inside GSA MAS. Or they can trigger immediate rejection. The difference lies in how the work is packaged, priced, and documented.
Common incorrect assumptions:
- Installation automatically equals construction
- Maintenance contracts are interchangeable with capital improvement work
- GSA will “help align” scope during review
In practice, misalignment results in rejection or post-award compliance exposure.
SIN Alignment Is the Gatekeeper
Every GSA MAS contract is controlled by Special Item Numbers. SINs define what can be sold and what cannot.
Trades firms typically qualify only under narrowly defined service SINs such as:
- Facilities maintenance
- Preventive repair services
- Ancillary installation tied to a commercial product
- Facilities-related professional services
Red flags appear when proposals include:
- Structural or system replacement
- Project-based construction language
- Labor tied to build-out or renovation activities
Those issues are not negotiable once submitted.
When Construction Firms Actually Belong on GSA
Some construction firms do qualify. Not because they build, but because part of the business operates independently as a commercial service or product provider.
Examples Capitol 50 evaluates regularly:
- Mechanical firms with standalone preventive maintenance programs
- Low-voltage contractors selling commercial systems with limited installation
- Facilities service providers performing recurring, non-project work
The GSA contract must reflect that separation precisely. Revenue mix, labor categories, pricing methodology, and past performance all have to support service delivery. If construction drives the business model, GSA is usually the wrong vehicle.
Termination and Reapplication Risk
Firms that force construction-heavy scope into GSA commonly face:
- Offer rejection
- Scope violations post-award
- Contract cancellation during audit
- Extended cooling-off periods before reapplication
Once terminated for scope misrepresentation, reinstatement becomes uncertain. Documentation thresholds increase. Review scrutiny intensifies. Outcomes narrow.
Capitol 50’s Role in the Decision
Capitol 50 is typically engaged after firms discover they pursued the wrong path. The corrective work is diagnostic, not procedural.
That review evaluates:
- Actual revenue composition
- Service versus project labor exposure
- SIN-level scope conflicts
- Audit and modification risk
In many cases, the correct outcome is not a GSA submission. In others, it involves carving out a compliant service offering that can stand alone without contaminating the contract.
That determination must occur before any proposal work begins.
Next Step
If your company performs construction, trades, or facilities work, proceeding toward GSA without a formal scope and eligibility review creates unnecessary exposure. The question is not whether GSA is attractive. It is whether your business can withstand a scope review and future compliance audit.
Capitol 50 typically confirms that through a free audit and qualification call that identifies disqualifying issues before they become irreversible. Firms that skip this step usually learn the answer later. After time, capital, and opportunity cost are already spent.
