48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2

6.303-2 Content.

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

(a) Each justification shall contain sufficient facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific authority cited.

(b) As a minimum, each justification, except those for sole-source 8(a) contracts over $30 million (see paragraph (d) of this section), shall include the following information:

(1) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Justification for other than full and open competition.”

(2) Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

(3) A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency's needs (including the estimated value).

(4) An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.

(5) A demonstration that the proposed contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited.

(6) A description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as is practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under 5.202 applies.

(7) A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

(8) A description of the market research conducted (see part 10) and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.

(9) Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition, such as:

(i) Explanation of why technical data packages, specifications, engineering descriptions, statements of work, or purchase descriptions suitable for full and open competition have not been developed or are not available.

(ii) When 6.302-1 is cited for follow-on acquisitions as described in 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii), an estimate of the cost to the Government that would be duplicated and how the estimate was derived.

(iii) When 6.302-2 is cited, data, estimated cost, or other rationale as to the extent and nature of the harm to the Government.

(10) A listing of the sources, if any, that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

(11) A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required.

(12) Contracting officer certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer's knowledge and belief.

(c) Each justification shall include evidence that any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel (e.g., verifying the Government's minimum needs or schedule requirements or other rationale for other than full and open competition) and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical or requirements personnel.

(d) As a minimum, each justification for a sole-source 8(a) contract over $30 million shall include the following information:

(1) A description of the needs of the agency concerned for the matters covered by the contract.

(2) A specification of the statutory provision providing the exception from the requirement to use competitive procedures in entering into the contract (see 19.805-1).

(3) A determination that the use of a sole-source contract is in the best interest of the agency concerned.

(4) A determination that the anticipated cost of the contract will be fair and reasonable.

(5) Such other matters as the head of the agency concerned shall specify for purposes of this section.

[50 FR 1729, Jan. 11, 1985, as amended at 50 FR 52433, Dec. 23, 1985; 60 FR 48236, Sept. 18, 1995; 66 FR 27412, May 16, 2001; 76 FR 14562, 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 7 cases, 1998–2020 · leading case: Infrastructure Defense Technologies, LLC v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Infrastructure Defense Technologies, LLC v. United States (2008) uscfc · cites it 3× “§ 2304 (f)(1)(A) and 48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2 ; (2) by failing to issue performance specifications or qualification requirements in violation of 10 U.”

Innovation Development Enterprises of America, Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc · cites it 2× “303-2(a)(6) (now found at 48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2 (b)(6)). This is not a mere technical error— the officials approving the J & A should have been made aware of the Air Force’s failure to synopsize the contract action (and the ramifications that failure might have had on the…”

Filtration Development Co., LLC v. United States (2004) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2 (a). In addition, the exception has been interpreted as containing an implicit limitation that “the agency take reasonable steps to accurately determine its needs and describe them.”

Metric Systems Corp. v. United States (1998) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2 (a)(5) (1995). The J & A drafted in the case at bar specifically found that the Mini-MUTES contract will require Harris “to provide total system performance responsibility .”

Loomacres, Inc. v. United States (2017) uscfc “§ 2304 , the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. 6.303-2, and the Economy Act of 1933, 31 U.”

Agustawestland North America, Inc. v. United States (2016) uscfc · cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2 (b)(4). 24 Second, the April 3, 2014 Executive Order 109-14 failed to include a determination that, “the anticipated cost to the Government” of standardizing on the UH-72A Lakota helicopter or that the cost could be “fair and reasonable.”

Ssi Technology, Inc. v. United States (2020) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2 (b)(6). Plaintiff argues the 2019 J&A was factually and legally flawed because it claims the J&A incorrectly asserts Fischer Panda was the only approved source for the APUs.”

— 48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2(b)(7) — 1 case

Agustawestland North America, Inc. v. United States (2016) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.303-2 (b)(4). 24 Second, the April 3, 2014 Executive Order 109-14 failed to include a determination that, “the anticipated cost to the Government” of standardizing on the UH-72A Lakota helicopter or that the cost could be “fair and reasonable.”

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.