48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2

6.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency.

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

(a) Authority. (1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(2) or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(2).

(2) When the agency's need for the supplies or services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the Government would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals, full and open competition need not be provided for.

(b) Application. This authority applies in those situations where—

(1) An unusual and compelling urgency precludes full and open competition; and

(2) Delay in award of a contract would result in serious injury, financial or other, to the Government.

(c) Limitations. (1) Contracts awarded using this authority shall be supported by the written justifications and approvals described in 6.303 and 6.304. These justifications may be made and approved after contract award when preparation and approval prior to award would unreasonably delay the acquisition.

(2) This statutory authority requires that agencies shall request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances.

(d) Period of Performance. (1) The total period of performance of a contract awarded or modified using this authority—

(i) May not exceed the time necessary—

(A) To meet the unusual and compelling requirements of the work to be performed under the contract; and

(B) For the agency to enter into another contract for the required goods and services through the use of competitive procedures; and

(ii) May not exceed one year, including all options, unless the head of the agency determines that exceptional circumstances apply. This determination must be documented in the contract file.

(2)(i) Any subsequent modification using this authority, which will extend the period of performance beyond one year under this same authority, requires a separate determination. This determination is only required if the cumulative period of performance using this authority exceeds one year. This requirement does not apply to the exercise of options previously addressed in the determination required at paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section.

(ii) The determination shall be approved at the same level as the level to which the agency head authority in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section is delegated.

(3) The requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section shall apply to any contract in an amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.

(4) The determination of exceptional circumstances is in addition to the approval of the justification in 6.304.

(5) The determination may be made after contract award when making the determination prior to award would unreasonably delay the acquisition.

[50 FR 52431, Dec. 23, 1985, as amended at 74 FR 52851, Oct. 14, 2009; 74 FR 65615, Dec. 10, 2009; 79 FR 24198, Apr. 29, 2014; 80 FR 38309, July 2, 2015; 84 FR 19842, May 6, 2019; 87 FR 73896, Dec. 1, 2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States (2009) cafc · cites it 4× “302-2, 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (full and open competition is not required “[w]hen the agency’s need for the supplies or services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the Government would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources…”

Filtration Development Co. v. United States (2004) uscfc · cites it 3× “§ 2304 (c)(2); 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (a)(2). The Justification and Approval (J & A) executed on November 5, 2003, and approved on November 10, 2003, provided that the United States Army Aviation Missile Command “propose[d] to acquire, utilizing an acquisition method other than…”

Transatlantic Lines LLC v. United States (2016) uscfc · cites it 3× “; Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 ; Interested Party, 28 U.”

Associated Energy Group, LLC v. United States (2025) cafc · cites it 2× “7–13; see 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 . 2 DLA’s purpose for the bridge contract was “to maintain an adequate fuel supply to the two military installations” while “the Djiboutian MOE considered and possibly granted necessary licenses to other vendors,” among other things.”

Filtration Development Co., LLC v. United States (2005) uscfc · cites it 2× “§ 2304 (c)(2); 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (a)(2). The invocation of the unusual and compelling urgency exception is constrained by several inherent limitations as to scope and duration.”

Filtration Development Co., LLC v. United States (2004) uscfc · cites it 2× “§ 2304 (c)(2), and implementing Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 , the Army procured 183 “A kits” and 150 “B kits” without full and open competition.”

L-3 Communications Eotech, Inc. v. United States (2009) uscfc · cites it 2× “302-2, 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (2007), and related sections.”

Jones Automation, Inc. v. United States (2010) uscfc “at 2304 (e) & (f); see also 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 . But, this court need not consider whether plaintiff is inappropriately being excluded from a sole-source contracting opportunity because, as it turns out, there is neither a sole-source procurement planned here nor is plaintiff…”

PMTech, Inc. v. United States (2010) uscfc “In addition, any claim by plaintiff that a sole-source contract may be awarded on the basis of “unusual and compelling urgency,” see 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (2009), would be wholly inconsistent with its principal argument that the government’s override decision is not warranted by…”

Phoenix Air Group, Inc. v. United States (2000) uscfc “See 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (1998). . 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (a)(1) (1994) reads as follows: (a)(1) Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (g) and except in the case of procurement procedures otherwise expressly authorized by statute, .”

Agustawestland North America, Inc. v. United States (2016) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (b)(7). 26 . FAR 6.303-1 (a) states: (a) A contracting officer shall not commence negotiations for a sole source contract, commence negotiations for a contract resulting from an unsolicited proposal, or award any other contract without providing for Ml and…”

Ssi Technology, Inc. v. United States (2020) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (c). A J&A must “contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific authority cited.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2(a)(2) — 1 case

Trace Systems Inc. v. United States (2023) uscfc

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.