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. § 6305
Using cooperative agreements
An executive agency shall use a cooperative agreement 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 relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State, local government, or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; and(2) substantial involvement is expected between the executive agency and the State, local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1004.)The words “type of” are omitted as unnecessary. The words “money, property, services” are omitted as being included in “a thing of value”. The words “law of the United States” are substituted for “Federal statute” for consistency.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesImplementation of North American Wetlands Conservation Act and North American Waterfowl Management PlanPub. L. 102–154, title I, Nov. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 995, provided that: “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301–6308), the Fish and Wildlife Service is hereafter authorized to negotiate and enter into cooperative arrangements and grants with public and private agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals to implement on a public-private cost sharing basis, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.] and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan”.
Printing of Educational Materials and Continuation of Challenge Cost-Share ProgramPub. L. 102–154, title II, Nov. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1018, provided that: “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301–6308), the Forest Service is authorized hereafter to negotiate and enter into cooperative arrangements with public and private agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals to print educational materials and to continue the Challenge Cost-Share Program.”
Bureau of Land Management; Authorization To Use Cooperative Arrangements To Implement Challenge Cost-Share ProgramsPub. L. 101–512, title I, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1918, provided in part that: “the Bureau [of Land Management] is authorized hereafter to negotiate and enter into cooperative arrangements with public and private agencies, organizations, institutions, and individuals, to implement challenge cost-share programs.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
40
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case:
Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 8× “31 U.S.C. § 6305 (1). The Service must also remain “substantial[ly] involve[d]” in the activity.”
CMS Contract Mgmt. Servs. v. Massachusetts Hous. Fin. Agency, 745 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
· cites it 5× “” 31 U.S.C. § 6305 . The FGCAA notes that “substantial involvement is expected between the executive agency and the [recipient] when carrying out the activity contemplated in the [cooperative] agreement.”
California Dep't of Water Resources v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 603 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
· cites it 6× “LEGAL ANALYSIS The government has moved to dismiss this Contract Disputes Act action upon the ground that the agreements relied upon by the CDWR are not contracts that fall within the purview of the CDA See generally Def.”
Hymas v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 466 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
· cites it 4× “31 U.S.C. § 6305 . The United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over procurement contracts, but not cooperative agreements.”
St. Bernard Par. Gov't v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 730 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” 31 U.S.C. § 6305 . Since the Court construes the agreement between the NRCS and the Parish as a cooperative agreement, damages cannot be implied; therefore, the agreement is not money-mandating, unless the Parish can point to a specific provision mandating a monetary recovery.”
Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 250 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Cooperative agreements are defined by 31 U.S.C. § 6305 , which provides: An executive agency shall use a cooperative agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United *258 States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when—…”
Yee v. Jewell, 228 F. Supp. 3d 48 (D.D.C. 2017).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 6305 . They memorialize “relationship^] between the United States Government and a State,” where “the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State .”
Trauma Serv. Grp., Ltd. v. United States, 33 Fed. Cl. 426 (Fed. Cl. 1995).
“See 31 U.S.C. § 6305 (cooperative agreements are used when “the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value [ (here, use of federal medical facilities) ] to the .”
Protect Lake Pleasant, LLC v. McDonald, 609 F. Supp. 2d 895 (D. Ariz. 2009).
· cites it 2× “to carry out a public purpose^]” 31 U.S.C. § 6305 (1) (West 2003). The applicable regulatory definition of “grant” subsumes “cooperative agreements.”
Oppedahl & Larson v. Network Solutions, Inc., 3 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (D. Colo. 1998).
· cites it 3× “See 31 U.S.C.A. § 6305 . The statute establishing the functions of the NSF provides that it is authorized and directed to “foster and support the development and use of computer and other scientific and engineering methods and technologies, primarily for research and education…”
Anchorage, a Mun. Corp. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 709 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“According to 31 U.S.C. § 6305 , cooperative agreements are to be used when “the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State, local government, or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support of stimulation authorized by a law .”
Nat'l A-1 Advert., Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc., 121 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.N.H. 2000).
“§ 6304 with 31 U.S.C. § 6305 , the court is not persuaded that the relationship between the government and Network Solutions can properly be viewed as “symbiotic.”
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.