48 C.F.R. § 6.303-1

6.303-1 Requirements.

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

(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 full and open competition unless the contracting officer—

(1) Justifies, if required in 6.302, the use of such actions in writing;

(2) Certifies the accuracy and completeness of the justification; and

(3) Obtains the approval required by 6.304.

(b) The contracting officer shall not award a sole-source contract under the 8(a) authority (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) for an amount exceeding $30 million unless—

(1) The contracting officer justifies the use of a sole-source contract in writing in accordance with 6.303-2;

(2) The justification is approved by the appropriate official designated at 6.304; and

(3) The justification and related information are made public after award in accordance with 6.305.

(c) Technical and requirements personnel are responsible for providing and certifying as accurate and complete necessary data to support their recommendation for other than full and open competition.

(d) Justifications required by paragraph (a) of this section may be made on an individual or class basis. Any justification for contracts awarded under the authority of 6.302-7 shall only be made on an individual basis. Whenever a justification is made and approved on a class basis, the contracting officer must ensure that each contract action taken pursuant to the authority of the class justification and approval is within the scope of the class justification and approval and shall document the contract file for each contract action accordingly.

(e) The justifications for contracts awarded under the authority cited in 6.302-2 may be prepared and approved within a reasonable time after contract award when preparation and approval prior to award would unreasonably delay the acquisitions.

[50 FR 1729, Jan. 11, 1985, as amended at 50 FR 52433, Dec. 23, 1985; 55 FR 25526, June 21, 1990; 64 FR 72418, Dec. 27, 1999; 69 FR 77872, Dec. 28, 2004; 76 FR 14561, Mar. 16, 2011; 80 FR 38296, July 2, 2015; 84 FR 19843, May 6, 2019; 85 FR 62487, Oct. 2, 2020; 90 FR 41876, Aug. 27, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1999–2018 · leading case: Savantage Fin. Servs. Inc. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 300 (Fed. Cl. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Savantage Fin. Servs. Inc. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 300 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “§ 253 (f); 48 C.F.R. §§ 6.303-1 , 6.303-2, 6.304, 6.”

Corel Corp. v. United States, 165 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2001). “§ 253 (f); 48 C.F.R. §§ 6.303-1 , 6.303-2, 6.304, 6.”

Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Kelly, 69 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Mass. 1999). “§ 253 (1); 48 C.F.R. §§ 6.303-1 , 6.303-2, 6.304, 6.”

Agustawestland North Am., Inc. v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 793 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “48 C.F.R. § 6.303-1 (a). 27 . The Supplemental Complaint alleges "to the extent these 16 aircraft are to be used for general service missions for the Air National Guard, the Army could meet these needs with the UH-72As that have been in the inventory of the regular Army and that…”

Arxium, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “2 In their cross-motions, the government and intervenor rebutted ARxIUM’s points, arguing that the GAO’s determination that ARxIUM failed to meet the minimum requirements was rational, that the agency’s corrective action was reasonable and appropriate, and that the action did…”

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.