FAR 9.304—Exceptions.
Plain-English Summary
FAR 9.304 explains when the government does not normally require testing and approval before award or acceptance of products. It covers four exception categories: research or development items, products that must be qualified before award because a qualified products list or similar qualification system applies, products normally sold in the commercial market, and products already governed by complete and detailed technical specifications. The section also includes an important qualifier for the specification-based exception: if the requirements are so novel or exacting that it is doubtful the product will meet them without testing and approval, the exception should not be relied on. In practice, this provision helps contracting officers avoid unnecessary qualification burdens where market forces, existing qualification systems, or detailed specs already provide adequate assurance of suitability. It also signals that testing and approval should be used selectively, based on the nature of the requirement and the risk that the product may not perform as needed.
Key Rules
R&D items are exempt
Testing and approval is normally not required for contracts involving research or development. These items are often experimental or evolving, so the government does not treat them like stable production items that can be fully qualified in advance.
Pre-award qualification controls
If a product must be qualified before award, such as when a qualified products list exists, the qualification process itself substitutes for ordinary testing and approval. The government should rely on the applicable qualification regime rather than impose a separate, duplicative approval process.
Commercial products are usually exempt
Products normally sold in the commercial market are generally not subject to testing and approval under this section. The assumption is that commercial availability and market acceptance provide a practical indicator of product reliability and suitability.
Detailed specs may replace testing
When products are covered by complete and detailed technical specifications, testing and approval are normally unnecessary because the specifications already define the required characteristics. This exception is intended to avoid redundant verification where the government has tightly prescribed the product requirements.
Novel or exacting specs may still require testing
Even where detailed specifications exist, testing and approval may still be appropriate if the requirements are so novel or exacting that it is questionable whether products will meet them without verification. This is a judgment call that requires the contracting activity to assess risk and the likelihood of nonconformance.
Responsibilities
Contracting Officer
Determine whether the acquisition falls within one of the listed exceptions and whether testing and approval would be unnecessary or duplicative. The contracting officer must also recognize when novel or exacting requirements make testing and approval advisable despite the presence of detailed specifications.
Technical/Requirements Personnel
Help identify whether the item is research and development, commercially available, subject to a qualification system, or governed by detailed technical specifications. They should also advise whether the requirement is unusually complex, novel, or exacting enough to justify testing and approval.
Contractor
Understand whether the solicitation or contract places the product within an exception and, if qualification or approval is required under another regime, comply with those requirements. The contractor should not assume that all products are exempt simply because they are commercial or spec-based.
Agency
Maintain and apply qualification systems, technical specifications, and acquisition policies consistently so that exceptions are used appropriately. The agency should ensure its requirements documents clearly indicate when testing and approval are not required and when they remain necessary.
Practical Implications
This section is mainly a screening rule: it tells the acquisition team when not to spend time and money on testing and approval that would add little value.
A common pitfall is assuming that any commercial item is automatically exempt without checking whether another qualification regime or special requirement applies.
Another pitfall is treating detailed specifications as a blanket substitute for testing even when the requirement is highly specialized, safety-critical, or technically demanding.
Contracting officers should document the basis for relying on an exception, especially when the decision turns on whether the requirement is novel or exacting.
Contractors should watch for solicitations that reference qualification lists, special approval processes, or performance risks, because those can override the general expectation that testing is unnecessary.
Official Regulatory Text
Normally, testing and approval is not required in contracts for- (a) Research or development; (b) Products requiring qualification before award ( e.g., when an applicable qualified products list exists (see subpart 9.2 )); (c) Products normally sold in the commercial market; or (d) Products covered by complete and detailed technical specifications, unless the requirements are so novel or exacting that it is questionable whether the products would meet the requirements without testing and approval.