FAR 6.3—Subpart 6.3

Scope of subpart.

FAR 6.300 is the scope statement for FAR Subpart 6.3, which governs contracting without full and open competition. It explains that this subpart provides the policies and procedures contracting officers must follow when competition is limited, and it identifies the statutory authorities that permit such awards. In practical terms, this section tells readers that the subpart is not itself a standalone exception; instead, it is the framework for using legal authorities that allow an agency to award a contract without full and open competition. The topics covered here include the policy basis for noncompetitive contracting, the procedural requirements that flow from those authorities, and the relationship between the FAR rules and the underlying statutes. For contracting officers, it signals that any noncompetitive award must be tied to a valid legal authority and handled under the procedures in this subpart. For contractors, it indicates that sole-source or otherwise limited-competition awards are governed by specific statutory and regulatory rules, not by discretion alone.

Policy.

FAR 6.301 states the core policy for using other than full and open competition and explains when a contracting officer may lawfully award a contract without full and open competition or full and open competition after exclusion of sources. It ties the policy to the statutory authorities in 41 U.S.C. 3304 for civilian agencies and 10 U.S.C. 3204 for DoD, the Coast Guard, and NASA, and makes clear that noncompetitive contracting is only allowed when one of the exceptions in FAR 6.302 applies. The section also requires the contract file and award document to cite the specific legal authority used, so the basis for the exception is transparent and reviewable. In addition, it prohibits using poor planning or expiring funds as a justification for avoiding competition, which is a key safeguard against abuse. Finally, it requires the contracting officer to seek offers from as many potential sources as practicable and to use the procedures in FAR 6.102(a) or (b), or other authorized procedures, when proceeding under this subpart. In practice, this section is the policy backbone for justifying and documenting limited competition or sole-source awards.

Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.

FAR 6.302 identifies the statutory authorities that allow an agency to award a contract without full and open competition, and it points readers to FAR 6.303 for the justification requirements that must support use of those authorities. In practice, this section is the gateway to sole-source or otherwise limited-competition contracting, so it matters whenever an agency believes competition is not feasible, not appropriate, or would conflict with another legal requirement. The section covers the concept of “other than full and open competition,” the fact that the listed authorities are statutory rather than discretionary policy choices, and the need to stay within the specific applications and limitations attached to each authority. It also signals that using one of these authorities does not eliminate documentation obligations; instead, it triggers a formal justification process. For contracting officers and contractors, the practical significance is that the legal basis for limiting competition must be identified early, matched carefully to the facts, and supported by a compliant justification before award.

Justifications.

Approval of the justification.

FAR 6.304 explains who must approve a justification for other than full and open competition and when that approval is considered complete. It covers approval thresholds for individual justifications based on the proposed contract value, including the special approval rule for contracts awarded under FAR 6.302-7, the approval of class justifications, and the requirement to count the value of all options when determining the approval level. In practice, this section is the gatekeeper for noncompetitive acquisitions: it ensures that higher-dollar sole-source or limited-competition awards receive review at the right management level before award. It also ties approval authority to specific officials, limits delegation in most cases, and makes clear that agency procedures can impose higher approval levels than the FAR minimum. For contracting officers and program offices, the section is critical because an otherwise valid justification is not enough unless it is approved by the proper official in the proper form and at the proper dollar threshold.

Availability of the justification.

FAR 6.305 explains when and how an agency must publicly post the justification for other-than-full-and-open competition prepared under FAR 6.303-1, including the timing rules, where the justification must be posted, how long it must stay available, and what redactions are required before release. It implements the statutory public-posting requirements in 10 U.S.C. 3204(f) and 41 U.S.C. 3304(f), and it distinguishes among ordinary post-award postings, awards under the unusual and compelling urgency authority at FAR 6.302-2, and brand name justifications under FAR 6.302-1(c). The section also addresses the Government Point of Entry, agency website posting, minimum retention periods, and the need to protect contractor proprietary data and other exempt information under FOIA and related disclosure restrictions. Finally, it creates a narrow national security/security-risk exception where posting is not required if disclosure would reveal the agency’s needs and compromise security. In practice, this section is about transparency after a sole-source or limited-competition decision, while balancing public disclosure against proprietary and security concerns.