Criteria for Authority Industries Directory Listings

The Authority Industries Directory applies a structured set of eligibility and quality standards to determine which service providers earn a listing and under what classification. These criteria govern both the initial review process and ongoing maintenance of directory entries across all covered industry verticals. Understanding how listing decisions are made helps service providers assess their eligibility and helps directory users interpret what a listing represents. This page details the definition of listing criteria, the mechanism by which they are applied, common scenarios that arise during evaluation, and the boundaries that separate included from excluded entries.

Definition and scope

Listing criteria are the documented standards that a service provider must satisfy before appearing in the Authority Industries Directory. The criteria span 4 primary dimensions: legal standing, geographic service scope, industry classification alignment, and operational verifiability. Each dimension carries a minimum threshold that must be met independently — a high score in one area does not compensate for a failure in another.

The scope of these criteria is national. Providers operating in any of the 50 US states are eligible for evaluation, but only within the service categories defined by the directory's national service categories framework. Providers whose operations fall outside those classifications — regardless of size or reputation — are out of scope by definition. The criteria do not apply to consumer-facing ratings, informal reviews, or editorial features; they govern only structured directory entries that appear within the indexed listing database.

How it works

The evaluation process follows a sequential gate model. A provider must clear each gate before the next criterion is assessed. The 5-gate sequence operates as follows:

1. Classification match — The provider's primary service activity must align with at least one category in the industry classifications index. Providers offering services across verticals are classified by their dominant revenue-generating activity.
2. Legal standing verification — Active business registration must be confirmed in at least one US state. Sole proprietorships, LLCs, corporations, and licensed partnerships all qualify; dissolved, suspended, or administratively revoked entities do not.
3. Geographic service confirmation — The provider must demonstrate the capacity to serve clients in the geographic area under which it seeks to be listed. National listings require documented multi-state delivery capability.
4. Operational verifiability — At least 2 independently verifiable signals of active operation must be present. These include a current business address on record with a state secretary of state, a listed telephone number resolving to the business, or a verifiable professional license number issued by a recognized licensing authority.
5. Compliance standing — The provider must not appear on any active federal debarment list, including the System for Award Management (SAM) exclusions database maintained by the General Services Administration, or carry an unresolved enforcement action from a federal consumer protection authority such as the Federal Trade Commission.

Providers that clear all 5 gates proceed to classification assignment and are published under the relevant vertical. Those that fail at any gate receive a specific gate-failure designation, which determines whether reapplication is possible and under what timeline. Full details on that process appear in the submission process overview.

Common scenarios

Scenario A — Multi-state provider with a single state license: A contractor licensed in Texas that also performs work in Oklahoma and Arkansas meets geographic scope for a regional listing but not a national listing. Listing under the Southwest or South-Central regional cluster is appropriate; a national-scope entry requires evidence of delivery capability beyond 3 contiguous states.

Scenario B — Franchise or network operation: A franchise brand with independently owned and operated locations presents a classification challenge. Each franchisee is evaluated as a distinct legal entity. The franchisor may hold a network-level entry under the partner network structure, while individual franchisees are evaluated against standard criteria independently.

Scenario C — Provider with a resolved enforcement action: An FTC consent order that has been fully satisfied and is no longer active does not automatically disqualify a provider. The compliance standing gate assesses active enforcement status. A resolved order from more than 36 months prior, with no subsequent actions, does not constitute a current compliance failure.

Scenario D — New business under 12 months old: Operational verifiability is more difficult for new entities. A provider registered less than 12 months prior must supply 3 verifiable signals rather than the standard 2, because some standard signals — such as a long-standing business address record — are not yet established.

Decision boundaries

The criteria described above create clear inclusion and exclusion zones, but 3 boundary conditions require specific treatment.

Inclusion vs. Exclusion contrast — Licensed vs. unlicensed activities: A provider holding a required professional license in a regulated trade (electrical, plumbing, financial advisory) is treated differently from a provider operating in an unregulated vertical. For regulated trades, the absence of a valid license is a hard exclusion regardless of operational verifiability scores. For unregulated verticals, the compliance standing gate carries proportionally greater weight as a compensating filter.

Partial qualification: A provider meeting 4 of 5 gates is not listed in a reduced capacity. The gate model is binary at publication — either all gates are cleared or no listing is published. Partial qualification is recorded for reapplication purposes as documented in the update and maintenance policy.

Appeals and disputes: Providers that believe a gate-failure determination was made in error may initiate a formal dispute. The dispute pathway and evidentiary standards are separate from the initial criteria and are governed by the removal and dispute process framework.

The integrity of directory listings depends on consistent application of these criteria. The vetting standards documentation provides the technical detail underlying each gate's evidentiary requirements.

References

• General Services Administration — SAM Exclusions Database
• Federal Trade Commission — Enforcement Actions
• U.S. Small Business Administration — Business Guide: Register Your Business
• National Institute of Standards and Technology — Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity
• USA.gov — State Business Licenses and Permits