CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

System for Award Management

system for tracking US federal acquisition and contracting

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 14, 2026
Entity authorityQ5060650 ↗
Source-derived summary

The System for Award Management (SAM or SAM.gov) e-procurement system collects data from suppliers, validates and stores this data, and disseminates it to various government acquisition agencies.

Users and registrants

Users of SAM include contracting officials, grant-makers, contractors, and the public. Those required to register in SAM include:

Vendors: Those doing business with the federal government "will be able to log in to one system to manage their entity information in one record, with one expiration date, through one streamlined business process. Federal agencies will be able to look in one place for entity pre-award information. Everyone will have fewer passwords to remember and see the benefits of data reuse as information is entered into SAM once and reused throughout the system."

Grant-seekers and grantees: "Active SAM registration is a pre-requisite to the successful submission of grant applications!"

There is no charge for registration. Renewal must be done annually.

History

Central Contractor Registration (CCR)

The Central Contractor Registration (CCR) was the primary supplier database for the U.S. Federal government until July 30, 2012.

In October 1993, President Bill Clinton issued a memorandum that required the Government to reform its acquisition processes. Subsequently, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 was passed, requiring the establishment of a "single face to industry". To accomplish this, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) designated a centralized, electronic registration process, known as CCR, as the single point of entry for vendors that want to do business with the DoD. To this end, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Subpart 204.7300, required contractors to register in the CCR to conduct business with the DoD.

A new Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) policy, published October 1, 2003 (Circular 2003-016, FAR case 2002-018), requires that all federal contractors register in the CCR database prior to the awarding of any contract or purchase agreement.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “System for Award Management” as system for tracking US federal acquisition and contracting. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around System, Award and Management.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2012, 1993, 1994, 2003—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with System, Award and Management providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “System for Award Management”, the useful work is to connect “system for tracking US federal acquisition and contracting” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 14, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5060650. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2012, 1993, 1994 and 2003.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “System for Award Management”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow System for Award Management primary sources, System for Award Management archive and System research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “System for Award Management”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “System for Award Management” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.