48 C.F.R. § 6.302-7

6.302-7 Public interest.

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

(a) Authority. (1) Citations: 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(7)or 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(7).

(2) Full and open competition need not be provided for when the agency head determines that it is not in the public interest in the particular acquisition concerned.

(b) Application. This authority may be used when none of the other authorities in 6.302 apply.

(c) Limitations. (1) A written determination to use this authority shall be made in accordance with subpart 1.7, by (i) the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of Homeland Security for the Coast Guard, or the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; or (ii) the head of any other executive agency. This authority may not be delegated.

(2) The Congress shall be notified in writing of such determination not less than 30 days before award of the contract.

(3) If required by the head of the agency, the contracting officer shall prepare a justification to support the determination under paragraph (c)(1) above.

(4) This Determination and Finding (D & F) shall not be made on a class basis.

[50 FR 52432, Dec. 23, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 69258, Dec. 11, 2003; 79 FR 24198, Apr. 29, 2014; 87 FR 73896, Dec. 1,2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2003–2017 · leading case: Spherix, Inc. v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Spherix, Inc. v. United States (2004) uscfc · cites it 3× “The latter statute is implemented by 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-7 , which requires a “written determination” when an agency head “determines that it is not in the public interest” to have “[f]ull and open competition!!]” 48 C.”

Spherix, Inc. v. United States (2003) uscfc · cites it 4× “Plaintiff argues that the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) establishes rules implementing § 253(c)(7), specifically 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-7 (c), which requires that the determination by the head of the agency be supported by written findings.”

Clinicomp International, Inc. v. United States (2017) uscfc “See 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-7 (e); see also 48 C.F.”

Spherix, Inc. v. United States (2003) uscfc · cites it 3× “1 In its opinion, the court held that it “has jurisdiction to decide whether the Secretary of Agriculture’s determination that it is necessary in the public interest to make a sole source modification to intervenor’s contract is clearly and convincingly justified, as required by…”

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.