FAR 1.7—Subpart 1.7

Scope of subpart.

FAR 1.700 is a scope statement for Subpart 1.7, which governs the general policies and procedures for determinations and findings (D&Fs) in federal procurement. It tells readers that this subpart is not the place to find every specific D&F requirement; instead, it establishes the overall framework for when and how D&Fs are used, while the detailed requirements for particular D&Fs are located in the FAR subject-matter provisions that require them. In practice, this means contracting personnel must look first to the relevant substantive FAR part or section to determine whether a D&F is needed, what it must say, and who must approve it. The section’s practical significance is that it prevents users from treating D&Fs as a one-size-fits-all document and reinforces that each D&F is tied to a specific regulatory requirement. For contractors, the section matters because D&Fs can affect competition, contract structure, approvals, and other acquisition decisions, even though contractors usually do not prepare them. For contracting officers and agencies, it is a reminder that compliance depends on following both the general D&F framework and the specific rule that calls for the D&F.

Definition.

FAR 1.701 defines the term "Determination and Findings" (often called a D&F) and explains its role in federal contracting. This section covers what a D&F is, who must approve it, why it is required, and how it is structured: a "determination" is the authorized official’s conclusion or decision, while the "findings" are the supporting facts and rationale. It also makes clear that a D&F is not just a formality; it is a legally required written approval when a statute or regulation says a contract action cannot proceed without it. In practice, this definition matters because it sets the standard for the documentation that must exist before certain actions can be taken, such as when an exception, waiver, or special approval is needed. A properly prepared D&F helps show that the government considered the governing requirements and had a defensible basis for the action. A weak or incomplete D&F can delay procurement actions, create audit findings, or undermine the legality of the contract decision.

General.

FAR 1.702 explains the basic scope and content rules for determinations and findings (D&Fs). It covers when a D&F should be prepared for an individual contract action versus a class of contract actions, how far the approval extends, the fact that a D&F may allow a reasonable degree of flexibility, and how variations in estimated quantities or prices are treated. It also addresses a specific requirement for anticipated options: the D&F must state the approximate quantity to be awarded initially and the extent of the increase allowed by the option. In practice, this section matters because a D&F is not a blanket approval; it must be tied to the action actually being taken and described with enough precision to support the intended procurement. Contracting personnel use this rule to avoid overbroad approvals, while contractors may see its effects in how the government structures quantities, pricing assumptions, and option language.

Class determinations and findings.

FAR 1.703 explains how class determinations and findings (class D&Fs) work and what they are used for in federal contracting. It covers three core topics: what qualifies as a class D&F, what the supporting findings must show, and how long the authority lasts. It also addresses the contracting officer’s duty to make sure each individual contract action taken under the class D&F actually fits within the approved scope. In practice, this section matters because a class D&F can streamline repeated or related actions by avoiding the need to prepare a separate justification for every single action, but only if the class is defined correctly and the supporting facts are strong enough to justify the entire group. It is a control mechanism as much as an efficiency tool: agencies can use it to reduce duplication, but they must still document the basis for the authority and stay within the approved boundaries. For contractors, this section can affect how quickly recurring actions are approved and whether a contracting officer has valid authority to proceed.

Content.

FAR 1.704 explains what must be included in a Determination and Findings (D&F) so it is legally sufficient and usable in the acquisition file. It covers the minimum content requirements for the document: identification of the agency, contracting activity, and the document itself as a D&F; a description of the action being approved; the statute or regulation that authorizes the action; the factual findings and reasoning supporting the decision; the formal determination that the action is justified; any required expiration date; and the signature and date of the authorized official. The section exists to ensure that exceptions, approvals, or other actions requiring a D&F are not based on conclusory statements, but on a documented record that shows the decision-maker considered the relevant facts and legal authority. In practice, this means the D&F must be specific, supported by technical and requirements input, and written in the agency’s prescribed format so reviewers can tell exactly what is being approved and why. It also helps protect the agency by creating an auditable record that supports the decision if later questioned by oversight officials, auditors, or protest forums.

Supersession and modification.

FAR 1.705 addresses what happens when a determination and findings (D&F) is later replaced or changed. It covers two related topics: supersession of a D&F and modification of a D&F after a solicitation has been issued. The first rule protects actions already taken under an original D&F by stating that a later superseding D&F does not invalidate prior actions taken before the supersession date. The second rule gives the contracting officer flexibility by allowing the solicitation to remain in place if the modified D&F still supports the contract action. In practice, this section is about preserving procurement continuity, avoiding unnecessary cancellation and reissuance, and ensuring the administrative record still supports the acquisition decision. It matters because D&Fs often authorize exceptions, approvals, or special contract actions, and agencies need clear rules for what happens when the underlying justification changes midstream.

Expiration.

FAR 1.706 explains when a determination and findings (D&F) expires and how long it remains effective for contracting actions. It covers four specific topics: the requirement to include expiration dates for class D&Fs, the optional use of expiration dates for individual D&Fs, when authority under an individual D&F ends, when authority under a class D&F ends, and the special rule that extends D&F authority when a solicitation has already been issued before the expiration date. In practice, this section matters because a D&F is only valid for the period and purpose authorized, and contracting personnel must know whether they can still rely on it before taking action. It helps prevent awards or other actions from being made under stale authority and ensures the record clearly shows the legal basis for the procurement decision. The solicitation-based extension rule is especially important because it preserves continuity between the approval of the D&F and the later award of the contract(s) resulting from that solicitation.

Signatory authority.

FAR 1.707 addresses who is authorized to sign a determination and findings (D&F) and how that authority is controlled. It covers two core topics: first, that when a D&F is required it must be signed by the appropriate official under agency regulations; and second, that the authority to sign a D&F, or to delegate that signature authority, is determined by the specific FAR part that governs the particular type of D&F. In practice, this section is a cross-reference rule that prevents unauthorized approvals and ensures the right level of official makes the required written determination before an action proceeds. It matters because many contract actions depend on a valid D&F, and a signature by the wrong person can create a legal or procedural defect, delay award or performance, or require ratification or reapproval. For contracting officers and program officials, the section is a reminder to verify both the applicable FAR authority and the agency’s internal delegation rules before relying on a D&F.