(a) 41 U.S.C. 3304 and 10 U.S.C. 3204) each authorize, under certain conditions, contracting without providing for full and open competition. The Department of Defense, Coast Guard, and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration are subject to 10 U.S.C. 3204. Other executive agencies are subject to 41 U.S.C. 3304. Contracting without providing for full and open competition or full and open competition after exclusion of sources is a violation of statute, unless permitted by one of the exceptions in 6.302.
(b) Each contract awarded without providing for full and open competition shall contain a reference to the specific authority under which it was so awarded. Contracting officers shall use the U.S. Code citation applicable to their agency. (See 6.302.)
(c) Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of—
(1) A lack of advance planning by the requiring activity; or
(2) Concerns related to the amount of funds available (e.g., funds will expire) to the agency or activity for the acquisition of supplies or services.
(d) When not providing for full and open competition, the contracting officer shall solicit offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances.
(e) For contracts under this subpart, the contracting officer shall use the contracting procedures prescribed in 6.102 (a) or (b), if appropriate, or any other procedures authorized by this regulation.
[50 FR 1729, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985, as amended at 79 FR 24198, Apr. 29, 2014; 84 FR 19842, May 6, 2019; 87 FR 73896, Dec. 1, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
KSD, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 236 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
· cites it 2× “§ 2304 (f)(5)(A) (2000), which states: “(5) In no case may the head of an agency— (A) enter into a contract for property or services using procedures other than competitive procedures on the basis of the lack of advance planning or concerns related to the amount of funds…”
Infrastructure Def. Tech., LLC v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 375 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 6.301 . The J & As for the procurement at issue were not premised upon a lack of advance planning nor on the expiration of available funding.”
JWK Int'l Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 364 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
“48 C.F.R. § 6.301 (c). Beyond JWK’s own conelusory allegations, plaintiff has not asserted that the Navy has conducted this procurement without providing for full and open competition.”
L-3 Commc'ns Eotech, Inc. v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 667 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 2304 (f)(4)(A) (formerly codified at § 2304(f)(5)(A)); 48 C.F.R. § 6.301 (c)(1) (2007). In the court’s view, however, the Army has made exhaustive attempts to procure CCOs through competitive procedures, but the acquisition schedules envisioned by these planning activities…”
California Dep't of Water Resources v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 603 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
“99-646 ; compare with 48 C.F.R. §§ 6.301 , 6.303-1 (allowing for the award of a contract when there is other than full and open competition if the government writes a justification for contracting on a noncompetitive basis), And so, applying such procurement regulations in these…”
Agustawestland North Am., Inc. v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 793 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 6.301 (a). 22 . The court also found the allegations in Count I ,of the Supplemental Complaint to be far from "simple, concise, and direct.”
Homeland Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).
· cites it 3× “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.301 (c)(1). HSSI attempts to show that the USMC’s set-aside is the result of inadequate planning by arguing that the USMC improperly waited until the same fiscal year as the award to begin the research for the procurement in violation of 48 C.”
Global Dynamics, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
“”); 48 C.F.R. § 6.301 (c)(1) (2017) (“Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of a lack of advanced planning by the requiring activity.”
Global Dynamics, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
“”); 48 C.F.R. § 6.301 (c)(1) (2017) (“Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of .”
Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
“48 C.F.R. § 6.301 (c) (2018). We find this regulation inapposite as it is a limit on agency authority to employ non-competitive procedures to procure goods and services rather than the circumstances faced here, a stay override.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.