U.S. Code » Title 31 » Subtitle SUBTITLE V— GENERAL ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION › Chapter CHAPTER 63— USING PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

31 U.S.C. § 6303

Using procurement contracts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar
An executive agency shall use a procurement contract as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when—(1) the principal purpose of the instrument is to acquire (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; or(2) the agency decides in a specific instance that the use of a procurement contract is appropriate.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1004.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised Section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

6303

41:503.

Feb. 3, 1978, Pub. L. 95–224, § 4, 92 Stat. 4.

The words “type of” are omitted as unnecessary. The word “decides” is substituted for “determines” for consistency.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 16× “] § 3301(a)) (Count I); the [Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (“the FGCAA”)], 31 U.S.C. §§ 6303 and 6305 (Count II); and was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discre- tion, and contrary to law [under the APA] (Count III).”
Hymas v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 466 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 9× “See 31 U.S.C. §§ 6303 , 6305. In 1984, Congress enacted the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”), requiring federal agencies to use “full and open competition” when procuring “property or services.”
William Partridge James Zagorski William Stojack v. Robert B. Reich Helen Haase U.S. Dep't of Labor, 141 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 1998). “” 31 U.S.C. § 6303 . Conversely, the Act requires executive agencies to use grants or cooperative agreements when “the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value .”
Westmoreland Human Opportunities, Inc. v. James R. Walsh, Tr. of the Bankr. Est. of Life Serv. Sys., Inc. Life Serv. Sys., Inc, 246 F.3d 233 (3rd Cir. 2001). “” 31 U.S.C. § 6303 (emphasis added). In contrast, the FGCAA describes a grant agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and .”
Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 250 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 6303 defines procurement contracts in the following context: An executive agency shall use a procurement contract as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when— (1) the principal…”
Parsons Evergreene, LLC v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 968 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “Thus, to the government, the Task Order is not “for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government,” under the meaning of 31 U.S.C. § 6303 . The government’s argument lacks merit.”
Tex. Tech Physicians Assocs. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 917 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2019). “31 U.S.C. § 6303 (1). An example is a Navy contract for purchase of a ship.”
CMS Contract Mgmt. Servs. v. Massachusetts Hous. Fin. Agency, 745 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “” 31 U.S.C. § 6303 . When using a procurement contract, an agency must adhere to federal procurement laws, including the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), 41 U.”
Ober United Travel Agency, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 135 F.3d 822 (D.C. Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 31 U.S.C. § 6303 (1) (1994). The government’s regulation defines a procurement contract as “a mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish the supplies or services .”
Cms Contract Mgmt. Servs. v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 537 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 2× “]” 31 U.S.C. § 6303 (emphasis added). Conversely, the FGCAA counsels that “[a]n executive agency shall use a cooperative agreement .”
Crewzers Fire Crew Transp., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 71 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 2× “Alternatively, Crewzers contends that the use of local governmental entities via cooperative agreements results in an improper non-competitive procurement contract in violation of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, 31 U.S.C. § 6303 (1). PL Br. at 32-35. We review…”
Trauma Serv. Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 426 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “” 31 U.S.C. § 6303 (1). However, the principal purpose of the MOA, as authorized by § 1096, is mutual assistance in carrying out the purposes of the CHAMPUS program, facilitating the delivery of care to third-party CHAMPUS beneficiaries, and reducing costs for both parties.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.