FAR 9.602—General.
Plain-English Summary
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.
Key Rules
Teaming may benefit both sides
Contractor team arrangements are considered desirable when they help companies combine unique capabilities and give the Government a better mix of performance, cost, and delivery. The policy is not mandatory, but it recognizes teaming as a legitimate and often advantageous acquisition strategy.
Complementary capabilities are the goal
The purpose of a team arrangement is to let the participating companies fill gaps in each other’s strengths. In practice, this means one firm may bring technical expertise, another may bring production capacity, and another may bring management or logistics support.
Especially useful in complex R&D
The section specifically identifies complex research and development acquisitions as a setting where teaming may be particularly appropriate. That said, the policy is not limited to R&D and may also be used in other suitable acquisitions, including production contracts.
Teaming usually starts before offer
The normal expectation is that the companies form their team arrangement before submitting an offer. This allows the team to present a unified proposal, define roles, and align pricing, technical approach, and responsibilities early in the process.
Late teaming is allowed
The arrangement may also be formed later in the acquisition process, including after contract award. This means the FAR does not require teaming to be finalized at the proposal stage, although the timing may affect proposal credibility, contract performance, and administrative coordination.
Responsibilities
Contractor team members
Decide whether teaming will help them compete or perform, define how their capabilities fit together, and form the arrangement at the appropriate time. They should also ensure their roles are clear enough to support the offer and later contract performance.
Prime contractor or lead team member
Coordinate the team’s combined approach, present the arrangement to the Government when appropriate, and manage the relationship so the team can deliver the required system, product, or service effectively.
Subcontractors or supporting firms
Contribute their specialized capabilities to the team and align their participation with the team’s proposal or performance plan. They may join before offer submission or later, depending on the acquisition strategy and contract needs.
Contracting officer / Government
Recognize contractor team arrangements as a permissible and potentially beneficial approach, especially where the acquisition is complex or requires multiple capabilities. The Government should evaluate the resulting offer or performance arrangement based on its impact on performance, cost, and delivery.
Practical Implications
Teaming is a strategy tool, not a compliance burden: contractors use it to combine strengths and improve competitiveness, especially when no single firm can efficiently meet all requirements alone.
The timing of the arrangement matters: early teaming helps with proposal development and role clarity, but late teaming is still allowed, so contractors should not assume a team must be fully formed before award in every case.
Complex R&D is the classic use case, but production and other acquisitions can also support teaming, so officers should not treat teaming as limited to one contract type.
A common pitfall is vague partner roles: if the arrangement does not clearly show who is responsible for what, the team may struggle in proposal evaluation or post-award execution.
Another risk is assuming teaming changes the underlying procurement rules: this section authorizes the concept, but it does not by itself define every legal, contractual, or competition issue that may arise from the arrangement.
Official Regulatory Text
(a) Contractor team arrangements may be desirable from both a Government and industry standpoint in order to enable the companies involved to- (1) Complement each other’s unique capabilities; and (2) Offer the Government the best combination of performance, cost, and delivery for the system or product being acquired. (b) Contractor team arrangements may be particularly appropriate in complex research and development acquisitions, but may be used in other appropriate acquisitions, including production. (c) The companies involved normally form a contractor team arrangement before submitting an offer. However, they may enter into an arrangement later in the acquisition process, including after contract award.