FAR 9.6—Subpart 9.6

Definition.

FAR 9.601 defines the term "contractor team arrangement" for Subpart 9.6, which governs contractor teaming arrangements. This section covers the two basic forms such arrangements can take: (1) a partnership or joint venture in which two or more companies act together as a potential prime contractor, and (2) a prime contractor-subcontractor relationship in which a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to support performance under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. The purpose of the definition is to establish the scope of the teaming concepts addressed in the subpart and to distinguish teaming from other business relationships. In practice, this definition matters because it tells contracting officers and contractors when a collaborative arrangement falls within the FAR’s teaming framework, which can affect proposal strategy, responsibility for performance, subcontracting structure, and how the Government evaluates the offeror’s ability to perform. It is a threshold definition, so it does not itself authorize or prohibit teaming, but it sets the boundaries for understanding the rest of Subpart 9.6.

General.

FAR 9.602 explains the general policy on contractor team arrangements, which are cooperative relationships among companies that join together to pursue or perform a federal acquisition. This section covers when teaming may be desirable, what benefits it is intended to produce, the types of acquisitions where it is especially useful, and when the arrangement may be formed in the acquisition timeline. In practical terms, it recognizes that no single company always has every capability needed for a complex requirement, so teaming can help combine complementary strengths, improve performance, reduce cost, and support better delivery. The rule is especially relevant in complex research and development work, but it also applies to other acquisitions, including production. It also makes clear that teaming usually happens before offer submission, but it can be created later, even after award, which matters for both proposal strategy and post-award performance planning.

Policy.

FAR 9.603 states the Government’s policy on contractor team arrangements, including teaming agreements, joint ventures, and other collaborative arrangements used to pursue federal work. It says the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of these arrangements when they are properly identified and when the company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer, or—if the arrangement is created after the offer is submitted—before it becomes effective. The section also establishes that the Government will not normally require or encourage the dissolution of contractor team arrangements. In practice, this policy supports competition and flexibility by allowing firms to combine capabilities, while also protecting the Government’s interest in transparency about who is teaming with whom and how the relationship is structured. It matters to both contractors and contracting officers because undisclosed or late-disclosed teaming relationships can create evaluation, responsibility, and compliance problems, even when the underlying arrangement is otherwise permissible.

Limitations.

FAR 9.604 explains the limits on contractor team arrangements under the FAR’s contractor teaming rules. It makes clear that this subpart does not override antitrust laws and does not reduce the Government’s existing rights to require consent to subcontracts, evaluate the prime contractor’s responsibility, provide Government-owned or Government-controlled data rights to the prime, pursue competitive contracting and subcontracting policies, or require component breakout after initial production or later. It also confirms that the prime contractor remains fully responsible for performance even when work is divided among team members or subcontractors. In practice, this section is a safeguard: it allows teaming arrangements to be used as a business tool, but only within the boundaries of competition law, subcontract administration, responsibility determinations, data rights rules, and the Government’s continuing oversight of performance and sourcing decisions.