FAR 11.105—Items peculiar to one manufacturer.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 11.105 limits the government’s ability to write requirements around a particular brand name, product, or product feature that is unique to one manufacturer when doing so would exclude other capable sources. The section is about avoiding unnecessary restrictive specifications and preserving competition, while still allowing a sole-brand or unique-feature requirement when it is truly essential to the Government’s needs. It ties that decision to market research, the proper competition or sole-source justification process, and the required documentation or approval path depending on the acquisition method. It also points readers to special rules for multiple-award schedule orders and orders under indefinite-quantity contracts, where the competition framework is governed by other FAR provisions. In practice, this section is a guardrail: agencies must be able to explain why a unique brand or feature is needed, show that alternatives will not satisfy the requirement, and place the required justification or documentation in the file and, when required, post it publicly.
Key Rules
Avoid brand-specific specs
Agency requirements may not be written to require a particular brand, product, or unique feature if that would prevent consideration of other manufacturers’ products. The default rule is to describe the government’s actual need, not to lock in a single source.
Unique features need necessity
A brand name or peculiar feature may be used only when it is essential to the Government’s requirements and market research shows other similar products, or products without the feature, cannot meet or be modified to meet the need. This requires a real need-based justification, not convenience or preference.
Competition authority must support it
If the acquisition is conducted without full and open competition, the required justification and approval under FAR 6.302-1 must support the decision. For simplified acquisitions, the file must document the basis for not providing maximum practicable competition, or the decision must be justified under the applicable simplified acquisition rules.
Public posting may be required
For acquisitions over $25,000, the documentation or justification must be posted as required by FAR 5.102(a)(6). This creates transparency and helps ensure the brand-specific requirement is defensible.
Special rules for schedule orders
For multiple-award schedule orders, the relevant rules are in FAR 8.405-6, not this section alone. That means the ordering procedures and any brand-specific limitation must be evaluated under the schedule-order framework.
Special rules for IDIQ orders
For orders under indefinite-quantity contracts, the governing rule is FAR 16.505(a)(4). Agencies must follow the ordering competition requirements and any exceptions applicable to IDIQ ordering, rather than relying only on the general prohibition in this section.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Ensure requirements are written to maximize competition and do not unnecessarily favor one manufacturer. If a unique brand or feature is truly essential, obtain the required market research, prepare the proper justification or documentation, secure any required approvals, and ensure required postings are made.
Program/Requirements Personnel
Define the agency’s actual functional needs and support the contracting officer with technical facts showing why a particular brand or feature is essential. They must help identify whether other products could meet the need or be modified to do so.
Agency
Maintain acquisition policies and review processes that prevent unjustified brand-specific requirements. The agency must ensure the file contains the required justification, approval, or documentation and that public posting requirements are met when applicable.
Market Research Team
Investigate available commercial products and alternatives to determine whether other manufacturers can satisfy the requirement. Their findings are critical to supporting or rejecting a brand-specific specification.
Contractor/Offeror
Review solicitations for restrictive brand-name or unique-feature requirements and, when appropriate, challenge or seek clarification if the requirement appears unnecessarily limiting. Offerors should be prepared to show how their products meet the stated need or can be modified to do so.
Practical Implications
This section is a common source of protest risk because brand-specific language can look like an unfair restriction on competition. If the agency cannot show necessity and market research support, the requirement may be vulnerable.
Contracting officers should distinguish between a true minimum need and a preference for a familiar product. Convenience, standardization, or incumbent familiarity alone usually is not enough unless tied to the agency’s actual requirement.
The required paperwork depends on the acquisition method, so it is easy to use the wrong justification path. Always check whether the action is a full-and-open competition exception, a simplified acquisition, a schedule order, or an IDIQ order.
Posting requirements matter. Even when the agency has a valid reason for a unique brand or feature, failure to document and post the justification when required can create compliance problems.
A well-written performance-based or functional specification often avoids the problem entirely by describing outcomes instead of naming a manufacturer-specific feature. That is usually the safest way to preserve competition while meeting mission needs.
Official Regulatory Text
Agency requirements shall not be written so as to require a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company, unless- (a) (1) The particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements, and market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s needs; (2) (i) The authority to contract without providing for full and open competition is supported by the required justifications and approvals (see 6.302-1 ); or (ii) The basis for not providing for maximum practicable competition is documented in the file (see 13.106-1 (b)) or justified (see 13.501 ) when the acquisition is awarded using simplified acquisition procedures. (3) The documentation or justification is posted for acquisitions over $25,000. (See 5.102 (a)(6).) (b) For multiple award schedule orders, see 8.405-6 . (c) For orders under indefinite-quantity contracts, see 16.505 (a)(4).