C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER B—ACQUISITION PLANNING › PART 6—COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS › Subpart 6.3—Other Than Full and Open Competition

48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1

6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Authority. (1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(1).

(2) When the supplies or services required by the agency are available from only one responsible source, or, for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, from only one or a limited number of responsible sources, and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for.

(i) Supplies or services may be considered to be available from only one source if the source has submitted an unsolicited research proposal that:

(A) Demonstrates a unique and innovative concept (see definition at 2.101), or, demonstrates a unique capability of the source to provide the particular research services proposed;

(B) Offers a concept or services not otherwise available to the Government; and

(C) Does not resemble the substance of a pending competitive acquisition. (See 10 U.S.C. 3204(b)(A)and 41 U.S.C. 3304(b)(1).)

(ii) Supplies may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof, when it is likely that award to any other source would result in—

(A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition; or

(B) Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements. (See 10 U.S.C. 3204(b)(B)or 41 U.S.C. 3304(b)(2).)

(iii) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in—

(A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition; or

(B) Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements. (See 10 U.S.C. 3204(b)(B).)

(b) Application. This authority shall be used, if appropriate, in preference to the authority in 6.302-7; it shall not be used when any of the other circumstances is applicable. Use of this authority may be appropriate in situations such as the following (these examples are not intended to be all-inclusive and do not constitute authority in and of themselves):

(1) When there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the agency's minimum needs can only be satisfied by—

(i) Unique supplies or services available from only one source or only one supplier with unique capabilities; or

(ii) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, unique supplies or services available from only one or a limited number of sources or from only one or a limited number of suppliers with unique capabilities.

(2) The existence of limited rights in data, patent rights, copyrights, or secret processes; the control of basic raw material; or similar circumstances, make the supplies and services available from only one source (however, the mere existence of such rights or circumstances does not in and of itself justify the use of these authorities) (see part 27).

(3) When acquiring utility services (see 41.101), circumstances may dictate that only one supplier can furnish the service (see 41.202); or when the contemplated contract is for construction of a part of a utility system and the utility company itself is the only source available to work on the system.

(4) When the agency head has determined in accordance with the agency's standardization program that only specified makes and models of technical equipment and parts will satisfy the agency's needs for additional units or replacement items, and only one source is available.

(c) Application for brand-name descriptions. (1) An acquisition or portion of an acquisition that uses a brand-name description or other purchase description to specify a particular brand-name, product, or feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer—

(i) Does not provide for full and open competition, regardless of the number of sources solicited; and

(ii) Shall be justified and approved in accordance with 6.303 and 6.304.

(A) If only a portion of the acquisition is for a brand-name product or item peculiar to one manufacturer, the justification and approval is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name or peculiar to one manufacturer. The justification should state it is covering only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name or peculiar to one manufacturer, and the approval level requirements will then only apply to that portion;

(B) The justification should indicate that the use of such descriptions in the acquisition or portion of an acquisition is essential to the Government's requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company; and

(C) The justification shall be posted with the solicitation (see 5.102(a)(6)).

(2) Brand-name or equal descriptions, and other purchase descriptions that permit prospective contractors to offer products other than those specifically referenced by brand-name, provide for full and open competition and do not require justifications and approvals to support their use.

(d) Limitations. (1) Contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by the written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304.

(2) For contracts awarded using this authority, the notices required by 5.201 shall have been published and any bids, proposals, quotations, or capability statements must have been considered.

[50 FR 52431, Dec. 23, 1985, as amended at 52 FR 21886, June 9, 1987; 53 FR 27463, July 20, 1988; 56 FR 29127, June 25, 1991; 59 FR 67018, Dec. 28, 1994; 66 FR 2128, Jan. 10, 2001; 71 FR 57359, Sept. 28, 2006; 73 FR 10962, Feb. 28, 2008; 77 FR 193, Jan. 3, 2012; 79 FR 24198, Apr. 29, 2014; 84 FR 19842, May 6, 2019; 87 FR 73896, Dec. 1, 2022] Editorial Note:At 79 FR 24198, Apr. 29, 2014, § 6.302-1 was amended; however, the amendment could not be incorporated because of the inaccurate amendatory instruction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1987–2020 · leading case: AgustaWestland North America, Inc. v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
AgustaWestland North America, Inc. v. United States (2018) cafc “302-l(a)(2)(ii) ( 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1 ). A “major system” includes a Department of Defense system exceeding $835 million in total expenditures.”
Infrastructure Defense Technologies, LLC v. United States (2008) uscfc · cites it 2× “§ 2304 (c)(1); 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1 . The J & As for the base and bridge contract describe the Concertainer Defense Walls by specific NSNs in the following categories: (a) rapid assembly protective walls—thirteen NSNs; (b) rapid assembly personnel field defense protective…”
L-3 Communications Corp. v. United States (2011) uscfc “See 48 C.F.R. §§ 6.302-1 to .302-3, 6.302-5 to .”
Innovation Development Enterprises of America, Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc “§ 2304 (c)(l)-(2) (2006); 48 C.F.R. §§ 6.302-1 , 6.302-2 (2009); Sole Source Procurement; Only One Responsible Source; Unusual and Compelling Urgency; Standing; Lack of Advance Planning; Irrational Decision-Making; Violations of Procurement Laws and Regulations.”
PMTech, Inc. v. United States (2010) uscfc “PMTech does not assert, for example, that there is only one responsible source for the services to be procured, see 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1 (2009), and the award of the task order to SEC clearly demonstrates that PMTech is not the only contractor capable of rendering those services.”
Google, Inc. v. United States (2011) uscfc “and no other supplies or services will satisfy [Interior’s] requirements” ( 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1 ), the contracting officer is prohibited from “commencing] negotiations for a sole source contract .”
Engineered Arresting Sys. Corp. v. Atech, Inc. (2018) alnd · cites it 3× “Pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1 (c), USAF must justify "[a]n acquisition or portion of an acquisition that uses a brand-name description or other purchase description to specify a particular brand-name, product, or feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer.”
National Gateway Telecom, Inc. v. Aldridge (1988) njd “” DIA made the appropriate certifications justifying this exception and obtained the approvals in accordance with subsection 2304(f)(1) and applicable regulations, 48 C.F.R. Section 6.302-1. The contract was awarded and no protests were filed.”
Black Hills Power and Light Company, a South Dakota Corporation v. Caspar W. Weinberger, as Secretary of the Department (1987) ca8 “2304 (c)(1); see also 48 C.F.R. 6.302-1(a)(2). 29 The term "responsible source" is defined at 41 U.”
Agustawestland North America, Inc. v. United States (2016) uscfc · cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1 (b)(2) (emphasis added).”
American Science and Engineering, Inc. v. Kelly (1999) mad “§ 253 (c)(1); see also 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1 . 2 . For example, exclusion of a source may be proper if it "would increase or maintain competition and would likely result in reduced overall costs for such procurement, or for any anticipated procurement, of such property or services.”
Black Hills Power & Light Co. v. Weinberger (1987) ca8 “§ 2304 (c)(1); see also 48 C.F.R. 6.302-1(a)(2). The term “responsible source” is defined at 41 U.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-1(a)(2) — 2 cases
Black Hills Power and Light Company, a South Dakota Corporation v. Caspar W. Weinberger, as Secretary of the Department (1987) ca8 “2304 (c)(1); see also 48 C.F.R. 6.302-1(a)(2). 29 The term "responsible source" is defined at 41 U.”
Black Hills Power & Light Co. v. Weinberger (1987) ca8 “§ 2304 (c)(1); see also 48 C.F.R. 6.302-1(a)(2). The term “responsible source” is defined at 41 U.”
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.