The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is the cornerstone of US federal procurement law.  It enumerates regulatory requirements in 53 distinct sections, called parts, that guide and dictate the country’s procedures for the acquisition of supplies, services, and construction materials by the US government.  The FAR shares many commonalities with other international public procurement regimes and is a primary mechanism that the US government uses to ensure adherence to its trade agreements with foreign countries when it acquires these goods and services.

The most notable commonality between the FAR other public procurement and government contracting laws is their shared aim to promote fairness and transparency through standardized processes and regulations.  The FAR’s emphasis on fair and open competition, integrity, and transparency in the federal procurement process aligns with the objectives of the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement (WTO GPA), the European Union (EU) procurement directives, various Free Trade Agreements (FTA and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), albeit on an international scale or within specific regions.

For example, the FAR incorporates many WTO GPA principles into its procurement regulations and requires that eligible products from WTO GPA and FTAs are subject to nondiscriminatory treatment.  Similarly, despite not adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement, the FAR has substantial parallels with UNCITRAL methodologies. FAR Part 14 “Sealed Bidding” mirrors UNCITRAL’s “open tendering,” while FAR Part 15 “Contracting by Negotiations” resembles UNCITRAL’s competitive negotiations, as seen in UNCITRAL’s “requests for proposals with dialogue.”  Moreover, the FAR’s guiding principles articulated in FAR 1.102, which emphasize the promotion of efficiency, transparency, competition, and accountability in government procurement to achieve the best value for taxpayers and support the mission of federal agencies; echo the UNCITRAL Model Law on Public Procurement’s core objective of efficiency, integrity, fairness and competition.

In addition to these shared principles and procurement methodologies, the FAR mandates the inclusion of specific clauses in contracts that align with specific trade agreements and international commitments.  For example, FAR 52.225-3, the Buy American – Free Trade Agreements – Israeli Trade Act clause, establishes guidelines for the acquisition of goods and services, outlining conditions where domestic preference applies and exceptions for designated countries under free trade agreements. The clause ensures compliance with trade agreements while delineating when foreign-sourced goods or services may be eligible for procurement.

Similarly, FAR 52.225-5 implements various trade agreements, including those with Caribbean Basin countries, WTO GPA countries, and Free Trade Agreement countries. It ensures compliance with non-discriminatory treatment principles by specifying the application of trade agreement thresholds, determining the origin of supplies, and outlining procedures for evaluating eligibility under these agreements.

In May 2025, the FAR Council launched a major initiative called the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) which is designed to streamline and modernize the FAR. According to official guidance, this initiative will eliminate many non‑statutory rules, simplify procurement language, and give agencies greater flexibility while retaining the core principles of fairness, transparency, and competition. This reform underscores that while the U.S. remains aligned with global procurement principles, it is also refining its domestic framework to emphasize efficiency, innovation, and adaptability rather than simply mirroring supra‑national models.

Accordingly, while international frameworks such as the WTO GPA and UNCITRAL retain their relevance as touchstones, the U.S. system — via the FAR and now the RFO — remains uniquely tailored to its federal procurement context, balancing global trade commitments with domestic statutory and agency‑specific requirements.

In the United States, various types of public procurement or government contracts are regulated, each falling under specific procurement regimes or regulations.  The federal procurement is governed primarily by the FAR and the sub-regulations promulgated by individual federal agencies. In fact, nearly all federal agencies have promulgated supplements to the FAR for their own procurements, ensuring that the unique needs of their respective agencies are met. The FAR covers acquisitions for goods, services, and construction across most federal sectors, including defense, research and development, infrastructure projects, and IT services.  Regulations provide flexibility to allow entities like the Department of Defense (DOD) to exercise authority under the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to accommodate exceptions to such laws as the Buy American Act for qualifying countries through reciprocal defense procurement agreements. In 2025, federal agencies continued implementation of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in late 2024, with several agencies (including DOT, DOE, and DOI) issuing updated domestic preference policies applicable to infrastructure-related procurements.

Although the FAR applies to executive branch agencies, it does not necessarily apply to all executive branch agencies, or to all organizational components of a particular executive branch agency. Federal agencies that are exempted from the FAR include the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which Congress has authorized to establish its own acquisition system, and the U.S. Mint an organizational component of the Department of the Treasury, responsible for procurement of coinage).  Moreover, the FAR does not apply to legislative branch agencies or judicial branch agencies, although agencies in these other branches of government (or otherwise not subject to the FAR) often adopt the FAR as a matter of policy, or promulgate or requirements like those in the FAR. Lastly, some “quasi-governmental” agencies, such as the United States Postal Service (USPS) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), are exempt from using the FAR. In 2025, USPS issued revisions to the USPS Supplying Principles and Practices (SPP) and the USPS Acquisition Policies (effective April 2025), modernizing competition standards and supply-chain risk assessment requirements.

In addition to federal procurement, state and local governments promulgate their own individual state procurement laws and regulations, which vary from state to state.  These state and local laws, many of which were updated in 2025 to incorporate cybersecurity and supply-chain requirements aligned with NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3, cover purchases made by state and local governments for goods, services, and construction projects within their jurisdictions, including local infrastructure, education, and healthcare.  Importantly, although the FAR applies to tribal land when acquiring goods or services from tribal organizations through the Buy Indian Act, most Native American tribal governments also have their own regulations specific to their tribal lands.

As it relates to utilities, FAR Part 41 specifically focuses on the acquisition of utility services such as electricity, water, gas, sewage, heating and cooling services by federal agencies.  The primary aim of FAR Part 41 is to establish mechanisms for federal agencies to efficiently acquire these services while ensuring compliance with legal requirements, promoting competition, and achieving cost-effectiveness. Important sections of FAR Part 41 include:

• FAR 41.101: General definitions related to utility services, providing clarity on what services fall within the scope of utility services under federal procurement regulations.
• FAR 41.102: Applicability of FAR Part 41, providing details on the scope of utility services specific services considered utility services and their categorizations.
• FAR 41.201: Guidance on procurement methods and procedures for acquiring utility services in line with the Federal Government’s policy that federal agencies obtain utilizes from sources deem advantageous to the US. This section details various approaches for conducting acquisitions, such as competitive bidding, negotiations, or other suitable methods for awarding contracts related to utility services.
• FAR 41.202: Specific requirements or considerations for conducting competitions and evaluations when procuring utility services, including factors like price analysis, technical evaluations, and selection criteria for service providers.
• FAR 41.301: Essential clauses and terms that should be included in contracts for utility services. This section includes pricing mechanisms, billing procedures, performance standards, termination clauses, compliance requirements, and any unique clauses specific to utility service contracts.
• FAR 41.302: Sets out additional clauses that are available for utility contracts, such as provisions related to service levels, environmental considerations, or other requirements specific to utility service contracts. In 2025, agencies increased use of energy-efficiency and climate-resiliency clauses following the 2024 Executive Order on Federal Energy Optimization.

Regulated utilities in the United States, such as water, gas, electricity, coal, oil, postal services, telecommunications, ports, and airports, have their own specific statutes or regulations governing their procurement processes. The specifics of procurement regulations for each of these utilities varies widely based on the nature of the entity, its ownership, its funding sources, and its geographical location. As such, reviewing the specific federal, state, and local regulations applicable to each utility is particularly crucial for understanding their procurement practices and requirements.

Examples of some of these regulated sectors and the corresponding statutes or regulations that govern their procurements are outlined below:

• Water Utilities: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) establish guidelines for water quality and infrastructure. Procurements may also be subject to state-specific regulations related to water utilities. In 2025, EPA finalized rules requiring lead-service-line inventory reporting, resulting in increased state procurement activity for water infrastructure upgrades.
• Gas and Electricity Utilities: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) oversees interstate electricity sales, while individual states often regulate retail electricity and natural gas service. State Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) enact regulations governing utility procurement and operations. Several states updated PUC procurement standards in 2025 to address resiliency, cybersecurity, and grid-modernization mandates.
• Coal and Oil Utilities: Procurements related to coal and oil industries may be subject to environmental regulations like the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) at the federal level. Additionally, state-level environmental and mining regulations may impact procurement processes. In 2025, Department of Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement issued updated guidance on reclamation contracting and bonding requirements.
• Postal Services: Unlike most other federal agencies, the U.S. Postal Service is not governed by the FAR. Instead, the USPS is governed by the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA), the USPS Acquisition Manual (USPSM) and other internal USPS rules. As noted above, USPS updated its acquisition rules in 2025 to strengthen competition requirements and supply-chain vetting.
• Telecommunications: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) oversees telecommunications regulations at the federal level. State public utility commissions may also regulate certain aspects of telecommunications within their jurisdictions. In 2025, federal broadband infrastructure awards (under IIJA programs) triggered heightened Buy America compliance and cybersecurity requirements for telecom-related procurements.
• Ports and Airports: The regulations governing procurement for ports and airports in the United States can vary based on the specific entity, ownership structure, and location. However, several federal and state regulations typically influence procurement practices in these sectors including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Regulations and applicable state, local and port authority regulations, which are promulgated by governing bodies or commissions. In 2025, FAA finalized updates to its Airport Improvement Program (AIP) procurement policies to align with BABA requirements and new infrastructure-funding guidance issued late 2024.

In the United States, there is no single financial threshold that uniformly triggers public procurement regulation across all levels of government. Instead, thresholds vary based on the nature of the procurement, such as goods, services, or construction, the contracting authority involved, and whether special flexibilities apply. Several federal thresholds remained stable in 2025, although agencies updated internal guidance to reflect inflation-related statutory adjustments and sector-specific developments.

The Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT) continues to serve as the federal government’s lowest procurement threshold. The MPT (and the Simplified Acquisition Threshold as described below) saw increased thresholds as of October 1, 2025. The general MPT increased to $15,000 as of October 1, 2025, allowing agencies to purchase goods or services without soliciting competitive quotations when the price is deemed fair and reasonable. In 2025, this threshold could still rise to $25,000 in circumstances involving domestic contingency operations or matters of national security, and agencies retained authority under the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act to apply higher MPTs for research institutions, tribal organizations, and certain defense programs operating under Other Transaction Authority.

The Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) defines the range within which contracting officers may use the simplified acquisition procedures in FAR Part 13. As of 2025, the SAT has increased to $350,000 as of October 1, 2025, for non-commercial goods and services, with the ability to rise to $1,000,000 for procurements supporting domestic contingency operations or national security activities. For commercial items, the SAT now reaches to $9 million for standard procurements and $20 million for acquisitions supporting contingency, humanitarian, or national security operations. Throughout 2025, federal agencies updated guidance to reflect the FAR Council’s ongoing review of how the SAT applies to digital services and AI-related procurements, although no numerical changes were implemented.

Federal acquisitions above the MPT and at or below the SAT generally must be set aside for small businesses under FAR 19.203 and FAR Subpart 19.5. In 2025, the Small Business Administration rolled out updated size standards and NAICS revisions, expanding small-business eligibility in several sectors and influencing how contracting officers applied small-business set-aside rules within the SAT range.

Sector-specific procurement thresholds continued to apply within the Department of Defense (DoD) and other agencies with specialized acquisition authorities. DoD maintained enhanced SAT flexibilities for cyber, supply-chain security, and AI-enabled procurements undertaken under national security justifications. Additionally, DoD and the Department of Homeland Security continued using separate acquisition pathways—such as commercial solutions openings and prototype Other Transactions Agreements—that operate outside standard FAR thresholds and therefore follow their own valuation and approval requirements.

Across all federal procurements, valuation rules require agencies to calculate the aggregate value of the entire requirement, including options, extensions, and reasonably foreseeable modifications. Agencies may not divide or structure procurements to avoid threshold-based competition or regulatory requirements—a principle reinforced in several 2025 Government Accountability Office decisions addressing IT services, facility management, and modular contracting practices.

State, local, and tribal governments operate under independent procurement laws and thresholds, resulting in significant variation across jurisdictions. Many states adjusted their procurement thresholds in 2025 to account for inflation and to accommodate infrastructure spending under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and Build America, Buy America requirements. Public utility authorities often maintained more conservative competitive bidding thresholds because of rate-payer oversight and statutory procurement controls. Tribal governments continued to revise their procurement codes in 2025, particularly to align with updated cybersecurity conditions tied to federal funding, including the new requirements emerging from NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3 and related grant conditions.

Because thresholds and procurement requirements differ substantially across federal, state, local, tribal, and utility-sector entities, each contracting opportunity must be evaluated individually to determine which rules apply and how the relevant thresholds affect competition, contract valuation, and regulatory compliance.

Yes. In the United States, even when a procurement falls below the federal Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT) or Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), it remains subject to several regulations, baseline requirements, and agency-specific controls. While the MPT and SAT reduce administrative burdens and allow for streamlined procedures, they do not eliminate compliance obligations. Federal purchases below these thresholds continue to require adherence to core FAR principles, including fair dealing, adequate documentation, avoidance of conflicts of interest, ethical conduct, and appropriate contract formation. In 2025, federal agencies continued to reinforce these expectations, particularly following updated Office of Management and Budget directives emphasizing strengthened purchase-card oversight, internal controls, and documentation of price reasonableness for micro-purchases.

For procurements below the SAT, agencies must still comply with the foundational requirements of FAR Part 13, including promoting competition “to the maximum extent practicable,” maintaining written records of acquisitions, and ensuring that pricing is fair and reasonable. These requirements were reaffirmed in several 2025 Government Accountability Office decisions reviewing simplified acquisitions for IT, logistics, and professional services. Additionally, although simplified acquisition procedures reduce formality, federal buyers remain obligated to ensure compliance with cross-cutting statutes, such as domestic preference requirements, cybersecurity obligations, anti-trafficking rules, and Service Contract Labor Standards, unless a statutory exemption applies. In 2025, the FAR Council clarified that updated cybersecurity obligations tied to NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3 will apply to low-dollar acquisitions if the contractor handles covered unclassified information, regardless of contract value.

Federal agencies also retain broad discretion to impose terms and conditions that go beyond baseline FAR rules for lower-value purchases. Agency supplements, including the DFARS, NASA FAR Supplement, and Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation, frequently add clauses or internal procedures that apply irrespective of dollar value. Throughout 2025, agencies updated these supplements to incorporate new supply-chain security directives, Buy America implementation rules under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and enhanced reporting requirements for critical goods and services.

Congressional and executive action can also impose requirements on low-value procurements independent of threshold levels. In 2025, Congress implemented several sector-specific mandates—particularly for AI-enabled systems, telecommunications-related items, and foreign-origin components falling under supply-chain security laws—that apply regardless of contract value. Similarly, new executive orders issued in 2025 relating to artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and domestic sourcing were implemented through agency guidance that applies to micro-purchases and simplified acquisitions when relevant.

Accordingly, although procurement below the MPT or SAT benefits from reduced procedural complexity, these transactions remain heavily regulated. Each acquisition—no matter how small—must be evaluated for applicable statutory, regulatory, and agency-specific requirements that may apply regardless of financial threshold.

FAR Part 5 establishes detailed publication requirements for federal contract actions, and the specific method of publicising a contract depends on the dollar value of the procurement and whether any statutory exemptions apply. These requirements are designed to ensure that contract opportunities and awards are communicated in a consistent and accessible manner, particularly for complex procurements that require broad visibility.

For contract actions at or below the Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT), there are no publication requirements under FAR Part 5. These lower-value actions are exempt from formal public notice and are generally executed through streamlined procedures without the need for public dissemination.

For federal agency contract actions expected to exceed $20,000 but not to exceed $25,000, FAR Part 5 requires that the contracting officer either display the solicitation in a public place or publicize it through appropriate electronic means. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that potential bidders can readily access solicitation information. These solicitations must also include the specific elements identified in FAR 5.207(c), such as the National Stock Number (if assigned), applicable specifications, manufacturer details including part and drawing numbers, dimensions or other form-fit-function information, the predominant material of manufacture, the quantity (including any options), the unit of issue, destination and delivery schedule, the period of performance, and any sustainable acquisition requirements. These content requirements ensure transparency even for lower-value simplified acquisitions.

For federal agency contract actions expected to exceed $25,000 but not to exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), FAR Part 5 requires a more formal publication process. The contracting officer must transmit a synopsis of the proposed contract action to the Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE), which is accessed through the System for Award Management (SAM.gov). The synopsis submitted to the GPE must include all of the required content prescribed by FAR 5.207, such as the applicable action code; the date and year of the action; the contracting office’s ZIP code and address; the relevant product or service code; the subject of the procurement; the proposed solicitation number; the closing response date; the contracting officer’s information; the contract award and solicitation numbers; the dollar amount of the contract; the line item numbers; the anticipated award date; the description of the contract requirement; the place of performance; and any applicable set-aside status. FAR 5.301 further requires synopsis of awards exceeding $25,000 when certain factors apply, including when the contract is subject to international trade agreements such as the WTO Government Procurement Agreement or when the award is likely to result in subcontracting opportunities. These synopses must include the same comprehensive elements—action codes, dates, solicitation and award numbers, contract values, and points of contact. FAR 5.301(b) also identifies limited exceptions to these synopsis requirements, such as for research proposals, certain specialized services, or perishable supplies.

For federal agency contract actions expected to exceed the SAT, FAR Part 5 imposes the most prescriptive publication obligations. Complex procurements in this category are generally subject to the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), and FAR Part 6 requires full and open competition unless a statutory exception applies. FAR 6.101 and 6.102 reinforce that full and open competition must be achieved through sealed bidding, competitive proposals, or other competitive procedures, including use of the GSA Federal Supply Schedules and multiple award schedules. Even where an agency invokes an authority to limit competition, FAR 6.301 requires contracting officers to solicit from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. Publication in SAM.gov remains the primary method of notice for all proposed and awarded contracts over the SAT.

Although SAM.gov is the primary vehicle for publicising federal opportunities over $25,000, additional methods are commonly used. Many agencies maintain their own websites or procurement portals through which solicitations, updates, and pre-solicitation notices are posted. In certain cases, contracting officers will directly notify vendors who have expressed interest, are on an established bidders list, or have participated in similar procurements. Agencies may also conduct industry days, issue Requests for Information or Sources Sought notices, or present upcoming opportunities at sector-specific conferences to ensure industry awareness of forthcoming complex procurements.

The time period for potential offerors to respond to a solicitation varies based on the complexity of the requirement. For complex federal procurements—especially those involving technical proposals, multiple volumes, pricing models, or compliance with extensive regulatory frameworks—the response period typically spans several weeks to several months. For highly complex or mission-critical procurements, agencies often provide extended response periods to allow sufficient time for offerors to develop complete, accurate, and fully compliant proposals.

For the procurement of complex contracts in the US, the initial selection stage (often called source selection) involves a comprehensive assessment to determine the offeror providing the Best Value to the Government. Typical grounds for the selection of bidders encompass a mix of technical, financial, and management criteria.

Typical Grounds for Selection of Bidders. The selection process involves evaluating several key factors, the relative importance of which is specified in the solicitation:

• Technical Competence and Expertise: This is a fundamental criterion, assessing the offeror’s qualifications, experience, and specialized skills necessary to meet the contract’s technical requirements and delivery timelines. It is especially critical in sectors involving highly technical or specialized work, like IT modernization or complex engineering.
• Financial Viability and Stability: An examination of the bidder’s financial health, including solvency, liquidity, creditworthiness, and the ability to financially manage the contract’s scope without undue risk to the government.
• Past Performance and Track Record: A review of the offeror’s history of successfully completing similar projects, including adherence to schedules, quality standards, and contract terms. Beginning in 2026, the use of past performance information is expected to become more standardized and broadly encouraged across the acquisition lifecycle.
• Compliance and Ethics: Ensuring the bidder complies with all legal, regulatory, and ethical frameworks, including industry-specific regulations and required certifications (e.g., safety, security, or environmental standards).
• Innovation, Approach, and Value Proposition: Considering unique or innovative solutions, proposed methodologies, or approaches that offer quantifiable added value, operational efficiencies, or risk reduction for the project. The recent regulatory overhaul emphasizes evaluating innovative and commercially available solutions.
• Price Competitiveness and Quality Standards: While often a primary factor, price is typically evaluated in conjunction with the above technical and non-cost factors, as part of a Best Value Continuum determination. The offeror’s commitment to robust quality assurance is also assessed.
• Project Management & Key Personnel Qualifications: Evaluating the bidder’s competence in project planning, execution, and risk mitigation, along with the specific expertise, experience, and stability of the individuals assigned as Key Personnel for the project.

Differences in Methodology Between Regulated Sectors. The emphasis on certain criteria varies significantly across regulated sectors:

• Utilities and Highly Regulated Sectors (e.g., Energy, Healthcare): In these areas, the evaluation heavily weighs technical capabilities aligned with strict sector-specific standards, such as compliance with critical infrastructure protection protocols, renewable energy targets, or stringent health and safety regulations. Expertise in grid modernization or adherence to environmental regulations are often pivotal.
• Government Departments (General Procurement): These procurements often prioritize versatility, administrative efficiency, and policy alignment. They may weigh a bidder’s ability to support broader governmental objectives, including public service delivery and adherence to socio-economic policies, such as small business utilization goals. A key emphasis of the regulatory overhaul is directing agencies to prioritize the procurement of commercially available products and services over highly customized solutions, where appropriate.

The Role of FAR Part 15 and FAR Part 16. The selection criteria are codified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). FAR Part 15 governs the initial competition phase for complex contracts, such as the award of Multiple-Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, while FAR Part 16 governs the subsequent competitions for Task or Delivery Orders under those contracts.

FAR Part 15 for Initial IDIQ Selection (Competitive Negotiation). FAR Part 15 provides the structured framework for competitive source selection, aligning with the principles of full and open competition required by the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). Key procedural points reflecting post-2024 changes include:

• Best Value Continuum: The revised FAR Part 15 explicitly endorses the use of a Best Value Continuum, formalizing multiple source selection methods including Tradeoff, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), and Highest Technically Rated with a Fair and Reasonable Price.
• Negotiations: The term “discussions” has been replaced by “negotiations,” which are mandatory with all offerors within a clearly defined competitive range unless the initial evaluation permits award without negotiation.
• Protests: Disputes (protests) concerning the initial contract award can be addressed at the agency level, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

FAR Part 16 for Task or Delivery Orders. FAR Part 16 ensures a “fair opportunity to be considered” for all awardees under an IDIQ contract vehicle. Key updates relate to the dispute resolution mechanism:

• • Protest Threshold Increase: Bid protests regarding task or delivery orders are generally restricted to the GAO and are only permissible if they exceed certain monetary thresholds (for most Civilian Agencies, the threshold is over $10 million; for the Department of Defense (DOD), NASA, and the Coast Guard, the threshold has been increased to over $35 million).

Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs). GWACs are pre-competed IDIQ contracts, primarily for information technology (IT), established by one agency for use by other agencies government-wide. They offer streamlined procurement processes and access to pre-vetted vendors.

The evaluation process for initial GWAC awards is governed by the same principles of competitive negotiation under FAR Part 15, with evaluation criteria tailored to the specific IT solutions or services being acquired. The process is a Best Value determination where the following key factors are assessed to identify the offerors who demonstrate the greatest benefit to the government:

The evaluation criteria for GWACs are determined by weighing the Technical Merit, which assesses the technical capabilities, expertise, and proposed solution approaches, against the Price Competitiveness, which evaluates the proposed pricing structures and ensures rates align with market standards. In addition, agencies rigorously review Past Performance to determine a contractor’s successful track record, commitment to quality of service, and ability to meet schedules. Finally, the contractor’s overall Capability and Capacity to manage the full scope of potential government IT projects, alongside the commitment to Small Business Utilization goals, are assessed as part of the overall source selection decision. The streamlining efforts under the RFO place greater emphasis on the contracting officer’s judgment in determining the weighting of these factors to achieve the Best Value for the government.

In the United States, certain bidders can be excluded from federal procurement processes based on both mandatory and discretionary grounds. The overall framework for exclusion is primarily governed by FAR Subpart 9.4, titled “Debarment, Suspension, and Ineligibility,” which enforces the fundamental policy that the government must only contract with responsible entities.

Mandatory Exclusion Grounds (Debarment). Individuals or entities convicted of certain criminal offenses, such as bribery, fraud, theft, forgery, or other offenses related to obtaining or performing government contracts, are often subject to mandatory or virtually mandatory exclusion. Similarly, entities that have been previously debarred or suspended by a federal agency, often due to violations of procurement laws or regulations, are also excluded from future federal contracting opportunities. Debarment, as per FAR 9.406-4, typically does not exceed a three-year period, barring certain statutory exceptions.

Debarment may be based on various causes, including the commission of antitrust violations or specific violations of federal criminal tax laws. Furthermore, certain statutes mandate debarments, such as prohibiting inverted domestic corporations from receiving government contracts or mandating exclusion for violations of arms control laws. A key mandatory ground introduced recently is the contractor’s knowing failure to timely disclose to the agency any credible evidence of a violation of federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or illegal gratuities in connection with the award or performance of a contract. The ramifications of being debarred or suspended, per FAR 9.405, include the prohibition on soliciting offers, awarding contracts, or consenting to subcontracts with the affected entities, though agencies may permit ineligible contractors to complete ongoing work.

The exclusion process is supported by a central federal register. Agencies must maintain lists of debarred or suspended contractors in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov), which serves as the official, central repository of information on these excluded entities and individuals. This central register ensures that an exclusion action taken by one agency is generally effective Government-wide. The final rule published in January 2025 further harmonized the definitions and procedures for exclusion between the procurement (FAR) and non-procurement systems, including the formal addition of voluntary exclusion as an option.

Discretionary Exclusion Grounds (Suspension). Discretionary grounds for exclusion are also available to federal agencies, primarily through the process of suspension or discretionary debarment. The grounds for discretionary exclusion often center on a contractor’s present responsibility and can vary based on the specific agency or procurement.

Suspension is a temporary disqualification from government contracting based on adequate evidence (such as an indictment) of a cause for debarment and is used to immediately protect the government’s interest pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding.

Discretionary debarment may be pursued for various factors, including a history of serious or repeated failure to perform the terms of one or more contracts, non-compliance with certain federal regulations, or significant financial issues (e.g., being significantly delinquent on federal taxes or demonstrating insolvency). The decision to exclude a bidder based on discretionary grounds ultimately lies with the agency’s Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO). The SDO assesses all relevant factors, including numerous mitigating and aggravating factors (updated in January 2025) which allow the contractor to demonstrate whether they have taken sufficient corrective action to restore their present responsibility.

A typical procurement procedure for a complex contract in US public procurement, specifically those above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and involving high-value or long-term contracts like Multiple-Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, follows a structured, multi-phase process governed primarily by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

The entire process, from initial planning to contract award, can typically take anywhere from 9 months to 2 years, depending on the complexity of the project, the number of bidders, the depth of negotiations, and any potential legal challenges or protests during the procurement process. The Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) aims to reduce this timeline by streamlining procedures and removing non-statutory burdens, but its full impact on overall duration is still emerging.

Applicable Rules. The complexity of these procedures is dictated by the FAR, which mandates specific steps to ensure fairness, competition, and best value:

• FAR Part 6 (Competition Requirements): Mandates that contracting officers shall promote and provide for full and open competition, which is the default rule unless specific statutory exceptions apply.
• FAR Part 15 (Contracting by Negotiation): Governs the detailed process for complex procurements where sealed bidding (FAR Part 14) is unsuitable. This is the core procedure for source selection, emphasizing a Best Value determination rather than just price. It prescribes rules for exchanging information, establishing a competitive range, and conducting negotiations (formerly “discussions”) with offerors.
• FAR Part 16 (Types of Contracts): Addresses the various types of contracts used (e.g., fixed-price, cost-reimbursement) and the specific rules for ordering under IDIQ contracts, ensuring a fair opportunity to be considered for all contract holders when issuing task or delivery orders.

Timeline and Key Stages of the Process. The following timeline provides a general, estimated duration for the key stages of a complex procurement procedure, absent legal protests or significant amendments.

Phase 1: Federal Agency Initial Planning (1–3 Months). This planning phase focuses on thoroughly defining the government’s need and the acquisition strategy, including:

• • Requirement Identification: The federal agency defines the project scope, goals, and specific technical and functional requirements.
  • Market Research (FAR Part 10): Agency staff analyze industry capabilities, identify potential commercial solutions, and determine the competitive landscape. This phase is crucial for informing the best contract type and acquisition strategy.
  • Acquisition Strategy: The agency determines the best acquisition approach (e.g., source selection criteria, contract type, and whether to use an existing contract vehicle like a GWAC or pursue a new IDIQ).

Phase 2: Solicitation Development and Submission (2–6 Months). This phase involves public communication with the potential contractor base.

• • Develop and Issue Solicitation: The agency drafts and formally issues the Request for Proposal (RFP) or, less frequently for complex contracts, the Request for Quote (RFQ). The RFP details the statement of work, evaluation criteria, and proposal instructions.
  • Industry Exchange: There is often an Industry Day or pre-proposal conference, and the agency issues amendments to the RFP based on industry questions.
  • Proposal Submission: Potential contractors prepare and submit their comprehensive proposals, which typically include distinct technical, management, past performance, and cost/price volumes. This period usually spans 1–4 months.

Phase 3: Evaluation, Selection, and Negotiation (3–7 Months). This is the most critical and time-consuming phase, where the government determines the Best Value.

• • Proposal Evaluation: Proposals are assessed against the criteria published in the RFP, which include price, technical capabilities, past performance, and innovation.
  • Competitive Range Determination: The Contracting Officer determines the “competitive range,” which includes the most highly rated proposals selected for further engagement.
  • Negotiation: The agency conducts formal negotiations (replacing the term “discussions” under the RFO) with offerors in the competitive range to resolve deficiencies, clarify ambiguities, and refine the terms and conditions.
  • Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs): Contractors submit their Final Proposal Revisions based on the negotiation results.
  • Source Selection: The Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines the winning proposal(s) based on a final comparison of the FPRs against the established evaluation criteria.

Phase 4: Award and Execution (Award Term)

• • Contract Award: The Contracting Officer issues the formal contract award.
  • Protests: Unsuccessful bidders may file a protest with the agency or the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which can significantly pause or delay the award (Protest resolution can take up to 100 days at the GAO).
  • Performance Monitoring: After award, the agency’s technical and contracting personnel oversee and manage contractor performance throughout the contract’s duration.

The procurement methodology for relatively low-value contracts in US federal procurement is fundamentally different from that of complex contracts, relying on Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAPs) under FAR Part 13 to promote efficiency, reduce administrative burden, and expedite the acquisition process. The applicable procedures are directly determined by the financial threshold, with the Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT) and the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) both significantly increasing effective October 1, 2025, due to inflation adjustments in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

For the smallest needs, the Micro-Purchase Threshold (MPT) has been raised from $10,000 to $15,000. Procurements below this amount are handled with maximum efficiency, typically avoiding formal competitive procedures entirely. Federal agencies can expedite the process by directly ordering from a vendor using the Government Purchase Card, with the primary requirement being that the price must be considered reasonable and that purchases are distributed equitably among qualified suppliers.

For contracts above the MPT but below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), the process remains highly streamlined under FAR Part 13. The SAT, which defines the boundary for SAPs, has been raised from $250,000 to $350,000 for most domestic procurements. For a contract that exceeds the relevant threshold for application of the procurement regime by less than 50%, as assumed in this question, the procurement would fall squarely within the SAPs. This procedure requires less formality, fewer public notices, and less detailed documentation than the complex negotiation procedures under FAR Part 15. The Contracting Officer is generally required to solicit quotes from a reasonable number of sources, though the full competitive range and negotiation process of a complex contract is not necessary. Furthermore, acquisitions between the MPT and SAT are generally set aside for small business concerns.
Additionally, the federal government uses contractual programs to streamline repetitive procurement needs, known as Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs). BPAs provide a mechanism for government agencies to efficiently fulfill recurring requirements while maximizing cost savings and minimizing administrative burdens. There are two primary types of BPAs: traditional BPAs, governed by FAR Part 13 and limited by the SAT, and those established under the GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Program, which are regulated by FAR Subpart 8.405-3 and allow for much higher limits. The process favors multiple-award BPAs to promote competition. Agencies establishing BPAs must ensure they receive quotes from multiple sources and actively seek price reductions. Contractors aiming to secure a BPA must possess relevant GSA Schedule contracts and demonstrate financial stability and fair pricing. The resulting advantages include reduced administrative overhead and advanced planning for both government buyers and contractors.

The most effective current best practice in US federal procurement is defined by proactive risk management, technological alignment, and a commitment to self-governance that exceeds the minimum compliance threshold of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). This approach ensures both compliance and competitive advantage in securing future complex contracts.

Proactive Risk Management and Performance. A contractor’s ability to successfully deliver goods or services in accordance with their award terms is the critical reference point for government agencies, offering insights into a contractor’s track record of successful delivery, cost management, and quality adherence. Therefore, maintaining an exemplary past performance record remains paramount for contractors.

• Strategic Past Performance Management: Compliance extends beyond the mere delivery of goods and services. Best practice involves continuous internal performance monitoring and active engagement with the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Contractors must provide factual input during the review period and formally challenge any inaccurate ratings to protect their eligibility for future opportunities.
• Self-Disclosure and Ethics Infrastructure: Maintaining a compliance program that facilitates timely self-disclosure of improper conduct is a critical best practice. This is driven by FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct, which mandates that contractors (exceeding a certain threshold and performance period) must develop and publish a code of ethics and conduct, a compliance program, and an internal control system. The clause specifically requires contractors to timely disclose, in writing, to the agency Inspector General (OIG) any credible evidence of a violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or violations of the civil False Claims Act.

Cybersecurity, AI Governance, and Supply Chain Integrity. Best practice demands implementing security and conduct protocols that anticipate and mitigate government risks, especially in high-priority areas like data security and emerging technology, going well beyond the basic requirements.

• Rigorous Cybersecurity Protocols: While FAR 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems, sets out fundamental cybersecurity requirements for Federal Contract Information (FCI), best practice for complex contracts involves implementing the higher standards of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 2.0 or the full NIST SP 800-171 controls (for Controlled Unclassified Information – CUI). Proactively maintaining compliance status in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) is key.
• Ethical AI Governance: Contractors that develop or use Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools should adopt the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (RMF) as a best practice for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks related to bias, data integrity, transparency, and accountability. This demonstrates commitment to responsible AI use, a key government priority.
• Anti-Human Trafficking Compliance: FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, obligates contractors and subcontractors to combat trafficking activities. Best practice requires contractors to implement and enforce policies, provide employee training, and conduct due diligence that proactively screens subcontractors and ensures compliance throughout the global supply chain, preventing contract termination and liability.

Subcontractor Management and Flow-Down Compliance. Best practice recognizes that the prime contractor is ultimately responsible for the performance and compliance of its subcontractors.

• Mandatory Flow-Down: Compliance with various regulatory provisions codified in the FAR that reflect key priorities of the federal government, including ethical conduct and cybersecurity, are crucial elements that prime contractors are required to pass down to their subcontractors to ensure compliance throughout the supply chain. These mandatory flow-down clauses include, but are not limited to:
  • FAR 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct.
  • FAR 52.204-21, Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems.
  • FAR 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons.

• Whistleblower Protections: FAR 52.203-15, Whistleblower Protections under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the broader FAR 52.203-17, Contractor Employee Whistleblower Rights and Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights (which applies to most contracts), protect employees who report fraud, waste, or abuse. Best practice requires the prime to actively inform their employees and subcontractors’ employees of these protections and maintain an internal system (e.g., a hotline) to manage and investigate reports internally before they escalate.

The evaluation of proposals (“bids” in negotiated procurements) in US federal government contracting is primarily governed by FAR Subpart 15.3 (Source Selection) and FAR Subpart 15.4 (Contract Pricing). These rules mandate a fair, transparent, and structured process focused on achieving the Best Value for the government.

Core Evaluation Rules (FAR Subpart 15.3). The FAR provisions specifically applicable to the evaluation of proposals in complex contracts (above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold) are as follows:

• FAR 15.304. Evaluation Factors and Significant Subfactors: This rule is foundational, mandating that the solicitation must clearly identify all evaluation factors and significant subfactors that will be considered. It requires that the relative importance of price or cost compared to other factors (technical, past performance, etc.) must be clearly stated. The evaluation factors must be tailored to the acquisition and applied consistently to all proposals received.
• FAR 15.305. Proposal Evaluation: This details the systematic process for evaluation, which must include the consideration of:
  • Cost or Price: An analysis to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable.
  • Technical Factors: The merit, feasibility, and utility of the proposed solution.
  • Past Performance: An assessment of the offeror’s record of successful contract accomplishment.
  • Other Non-Cost Factors: Any other factors deemed necessary, such as small business participation or management approach.
• FAR 15.306. Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals: This section governs communication after proposals are received. As clarified by the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO), the term “discussions” is largely replaced by “negotiations.” This rule permits the Contracting Officer to conduct:
  • Clarifications: Limited exchanges to resolve minor ambiguities or mistakes.
  • Negotiations (Discussions): Comprehensive exchanges with all offerors in the competitive range to address deficiencies, weaknesses, and other aspects of their proposals, ensuring a level playing field for offerors to revise or enhance their proposals.

• FAR 15.308. Source Selection Decision: This governs the final decision-making process. The selection must be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all factors identified in the solicitation. It mandates a formal and structured decision by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), documenting the SSA’s rationale for selecting the proposal(s) that represent the Best Value to the government.

Documentation and Pricing Rules. Beyond the evaluation of technical and non-cost factors, the FAR requires stringent documentation and specific procedures for evaluating cost and price:

• FAR 15.404. Proposal Analysis: This crucial rule requires the Contracting Officer to conduct a thorough analysis of the proposed cost and/or price to ensure the final agreed-upon price is fair and reasonable. This analysis may involve comparison to previous prices, market research, or, for certain contracts, review of the offeror’s certified cost or pricing data.
• FAR 15.406. Documentation: This stipulates the critical need for comprehensive records. The Contracting Officer must document:
  • The price negotiation memorandum detailing the principal elements of the negotiations.
  • The final agreement reached.
  • The basis for the award decision, which must align with the Best Value determination in FAR 15.308.

Notable Features in Evaluation. The US system allows significant flexibility in how factors are weighted under the “Best Value Continuum” concept (a key principle reinforced in the RFO):

• Tradeoff: The agency may choose to award to an offeror who proposes a superior technical solution at a higher price, if the value of that technical superiority is worth the increased cost.
• Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA): The agency may choose to award to the lowest priced proposal that is judged to be simply “acceptable” without considering superior performance as a discriminator. LPTA is generally restricted to requirements that are easily definable and pose minimal risk.

The US federal procurement regime does not employ a single, standardized definition of an “abnormally low” bid that applies across all procurement mechanisms. Instead, the rules focus on the concept of reasonableness and viability through distinct regulatory approaches under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which vary depending on the contract type.

Cost-Reimbursement Contracts: Cost Realism Analysis. For cost-reimbursement contracts, where the government assumes the risk of cost overruns, the concept of a suspiciously low bid is addressed through a Cost Realism Analysis mandated by FAR 15.305. The government’s concern is not the offeror’s proposed cost directly, but rather determining the most probable cost of the proposed effort. The agency must conduct this analysis to ensure the proposed costs are realistic for the work and that the bidder fully understands the scope and technical requirements of the contract. If this evaluation significantly increases the offeror’s proposed cost to reach the “most probable cost,” the bidder’s proposal is evaluated against that higher price. A major discrepancy between the proposed and probable cost is often interpreted as the bidder having a poor understanding of the work, which can then negatively impact their overall technical rating and source selection standing.

Fixed-Price Contracts: Price Reasonableness and Realism. Conversely, when evaluating a fixed price contract, the government’s primary duty is to ensure the price is fair and reasonable for the government, as the contractor assumes the performance risk. The FAR does not require a general price realism analysis to determine the bidder’s viability. Pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.404-1, the Contracting Officer (CO) is responsible for examining all proposed prices to determine their reasonableness, taking into account the circumstances of the acquisition. If the CO identifies a bid as suspiciously low (or high), they are required to conduct appropriate negotiations (discussions) to obtain necessary information from the bidder to support the proposed price. For competitive fixed-price contracts, a bid cannot generally be rejected solely because the price appears too low to be sustainable unless the solicitation specifically stated that a price realism analysis would be performed to assess the risk of non-performance. Without that specific provision in the solicitation, the government’s evaluation is limited to confirming that the low price is still reasonable for the government’s expenditure.

Unsuccessful bidders in US federal procurement have specific rights to receive information about the evaluation of their proposals and, in certain cases, details regarding the winning bidder’s scores. These rights are governed primarily by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the procedures vary depending on the procurement method..

Post-Award Notification and Debriefing Rights. For negotiated procurements (encompassing FAR Parts 15 and 16), FAR 15.503 outlines specific notification requirements that trigger unsuccessful offerors’ rights to request a debriefing in writing. These notifications are provided post-award, detailing aspects such as the number of offerors, proposals received, contract specifics, and general reasons for proposal non-acceptance, excluding sensitive financial or confidential business information. The subsequent debriefing provides the unsuccessful bidder with the most detailed information, including the Government’s evaluation of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies in their proposal, the overall evaluated cost or price and technical rating of their proposal, and the overall evaluated cost or price and technical rating of the winning bidder (awardee), along with the summary rationale for the award decision. This allows them to understand the evaluation process and where they fell short.

In sealed bid scenarios as outlined in FAR Part 14, FAR 14.409-1 mandates the Contracting Officer to notify unsuccessful bidders within three days after contract award, specifying reasons for rejecting low bidders when the award is granted to another bidder. For acquisitions under specific international trade agreements, unsuccessful bidder notifications must also include the successful bidder’s dollar amount and identity. Similarly, for procurements falling under the Federal Supply Schedule as outlined in FAR Part 8.4, FAR 8.405-2 stipulates that agencies should swiftly notify unsuccessful offerors if factors other than price influenced the award decision, typically including the contract’s bottom-line price.

Prohibition on Pre-Award Disclosure. It is important to note that regulated procuring bodies are not mandated to disclose the reasoning behind the award decision before the contract is awarded. Although federal agencies might internally review complex procurements before awarding, the public and bidders become aware of the award only after its occurrence. Understanding the evaluation process or award specifics generally transpires through the debriefing process. Notably, the Procurement Integrity Act, detailed in FAR Part 3.104, prohibits the disclosure of contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information before the contract is awarded to safeguard the integrity of the procurement process.

Additional Information Gained Through Protest. When unsuccessful bidders file a protest (e.g., with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims), they gain access to a significantly more extensive level of information and insight into the procurement process compared to what is received through regular notifications or debriefings. Through the protest process, bidders can access more comprehensive details regarding the evaluation of their proposal, including a breakdown of how their proposal was assessed against various evaluation criteria. They can seek clarification on the reasoning behind the award decision, gaining deeper insights into why their proposal was not selected. Furthermore, when filing a protest, unsuccessful bidders may obtain access to specific contracting documents, such as the solicitation, the full Source Selection Decision Document, or the evaluation narratives of the awardee (often under a Protective Order for their legal counsel). This enables them to seek clarification on the misapplication of rules, laws, or regulations. In certain cases, especially during bid protest hearings, bidders might get the opportunity to present their case in person, providing a platform to further clarify doubts or seek additional information. This additional information available through the protest process significantly augments the details provided in regular notifications or debriefings.

Unsuccessful bidders in US federal procurement have several potential remedies available if they believe the procurement process was unfair or irregular. The remedies available to unsuccessful bidders depend on the forum and are tailored to address specific flaws in the procurement process.

These remedies are available across various forums for protests, such as the awarding federal agency, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and specific bodies like the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution (ODRA). However, it’s important to note that the GAO,  as an arm of Congress, can only recommend corrective actions to federal agencies rather than order them. Additionally, the Procurement Integrity Act prohibits the premature disclosure of contractor bid or proposal information before the award of a federal agency procurement contract.

Debriefings and Discussions: Through the debriefing process, unsuccessful bidders can seek more information about the evaluation of their proposal and the award decision. This may reveal potential flaws or discrepancies in the evaluation that can form the basis for a protest or further legal action.

Bid Protest: Unsuccessful bidders can file a bid protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Court of Federal Claims. If they can demonstrate that the procurement process was flawed, unfair, or did not comply with applicable laws or regulations, they may seek corrective action.

Corrective action can take many forms:

• Reevaluation of Bids or Proposals: This remedy involves reconsideration of bids or proposals in line with the existing solicitation, statutes, and regulations. This is applicable when the original evaluation was flawed in a specific aspect, allowing a reevaluation of the deficient area.
• Amendment and Re-solicitation: This remedy permits the amendment of the solicitation documents (IFB, RFQ, RFP) and the subsequent re-solicitation of bids or proposals. This remedy is used when the agency needs to modify or clarify the solicitation.
• Cancellation and Reissuance: This remedy involves canceling the protested solicitation and issuing a new one typically when the agency’s needs have substantially changed or when there are issues that affect competition.
• Restriction on Contract Options: If the contract award is under protest and performance hasn’t been stayed, the forum may order the agency not to exercise any options under the awarded contract.
• Award to Protester: Rarely granted, this remedy involves directing the award to the protester if it’s determined that only the protester should receive the award based on the findings.
• Injunctions: The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has the authority to issue broad injunctions against aspects of the procurement process that violate the law or regulations.

Finally, contract termination is a severe form of corrective action and is generally considered in cases where there’s clear and compelling evidence of substantial irregularities or violations that warrant such action.  The circumstances under which a court might determine that an awarded contract should be terminated due to procurement irregularity include instances where there’s clear evidence of:

• Violation of procurement laws or regulations.
• Demonstrated bias or unfair treatment in the evaluation process.
• Material errors in the award decision that directly impacted the outcome.
• Systemic flaws in the procurement process that fundamentally compromised the fairness and integrity of the competition.

Public procurement law challenges, known as bid protests, are common in the US federal jurisdiction, providing a substantial mechanism for oversight and contractor recourse. The primary non-judicial forum, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), received over 1,800 cases (protests, cost claims, and requests for reconsideration) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. While the number of filings saw a slight decrease from the high volume of FY 2023, the volume remains substantial and consistent with historical norms. The GAO’s effectiveness rate—the percentage of protests where the protester receives some form of relief, either through a sustained decision or voluntary agency corrective action—was 52% in FY 2024. This high rate demonstrates that the protest mechanism is frequently successful in correcting procurement flaws, which most commonly include unreasonable technical evaluations, flawed selection decisions, and unreasonable cost or price evaluations. Agencies often undertake voluntary corrective actions to mitigate litigation risks or address procedural concerns, rather than engage in merit-based defenses.

In the U.S., there is no widespread or formal perception that bidders suffer reputational harm or harm to their prospects in future procurement competitions for filing protests. Federal procurement law strictly prohibits agencies from retaliating against contractors for exercising their legal rights to challenge a procurement decision. Protesting is widely viewed by sophisticated contractors as a necessary and common business tool to ensure fair competition and compliance with the law. While some bidders may perceive an informal risk of strained relationships with the contracting office, the existence of statutory protections and the consistently high volume of protests indicate that the system is not significantly affected by fears of retaliation..

The cost of pursuing or defending a procurement claim varies widely based on the forum and the complexity of the issues. For claimants filing a protest before the GAO, legal fees typically range from $10,000 to $100,000 or more, as the process is usually resolved quickly on the administrative record. For a more complex challenge or one taken to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC), costs can rise significantly, ranging from $100,000 to over $500,000 due to the requirements of federal litigation. For defendants (government agencies), the costs are typically absorbed internally, consisting of significant legal and staff time expenses for compiling the administrative record, drafting defenses, and participating in hearings. These costs are substantial but are not separately tracked or charged per case. Notably, a successful protester at the GAO may recover its bid and proposal costs and protest costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) if the agency unduly delayed in taking corrective action in the face of a clearly meritorious protest, but the initial legal costs must be borne by the claimant.

The timeline for resolving a complex federal procurement dispute in the US can vary significantly based on various factors, including the forum, the complexity of the case, and the actions of the parties involved.

Stage: Filing the Protest or Claim:

• This stage can vary greatly but typically ranges from a few days to a few weeks, depending on the complexity of the case and the forum’s specific requirements.
• Typically, protests to the GAO must be filed within 10 calendar days after the basis of the protest is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier.
• Protests to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims must be filed without undue delay. Unlike GAO protests, there is no fixed statutory filing deadline. Instead, timeliness is assessed based on the specific facts and circumstances, including when the protester knew or should have known of the basis for protest and whether any delay prejudiced the government or the awardee. As a practical matter, protests are often filed within days or, at most, a short period after the protest grounds become known, as even relatively brief delays may result in dismissal under the doctrine of laches.
• Federal Agencies have their own specific rules and timeframes for filing protests at the agency level, which vary but generally range from 5 to 10 days after the basis of the protest is known or should have been known.
• These time limits are critical and missing the deadline can result in the protest being dismissed as untimely. It is essential for contractors to be aware of the specific rules and timeframes applicable to the forum where they intend to file the protest and ensure compliance with those deadlines to preserve their rights to challenge procurement actions.

Stage: Agency Review and Response:

• Pursuant to FAR 33.101(g) federal agencies must make their best efforts to resolve agency protests within 35 days after the protest is filed.

Stage: Protest or Claim Consideration at the GAO:

• Pursuant to 4 C.F.R. § 21.9, the Government Accountability Office must resolve a bid protest within 100 days of the date the protest is filed. Resolution may occur through a decision on the merits, dismissal, or the agency’s implementation of corrective action. While some protests are resolved earlier, more complex protests often remain pending for the full 100-day statutory period.

Stage: Appeals to the Court of Federal Claims:

• Protests to the Court of Federal Claims can take several months or even years, depending on the complexity of the case and the court’s docket. Typically, resolutions can take from six months to over a year, sometimes longer for intricate cases.

Stage: Appeals to Boards

• The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) are independent tribunals that handle disputes arising from federal government contracts. The CBCA oversees civilian agency contracts, while the ASBCA handles disputes related to contracts with the Department of Defense and other defense-related agencies.
• These tribunals serve as alternatives to the GAO for resolving disputes related to federal government contracts. While the GAO specializes in bid protests, the CBCA and ASBCA focus on broader contract disputes, claims, and appeals arising from government contracts. These tribunals provide an alternative avenue for resolving such disputes outside of the judicial system, offering a specialized forum with administrative law judges who handle and decide contract-related cases.
• Similar to the Court of Federal Appeals, appeals to administrative boards can also take several months to a few years, depending on the complexity of the case and the specific board’s caseload.
• Administrative boards have emphasized alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, which may expedite resolution timelines in some cases, particularly for less complex claims.

In summary, the duration of a U.S. federal procurement dispute varies significantly by forum and complexity. Straightforward agency-level protests may be resolved in a matter of weeks, while bid protests before the Government Accountability Office or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims typically resolve within several months. More complex post-award contract disputes, particularly those litigated before the Boards of Contract Appeals and through subsequent appeals, can extend for a year or longer. Key stages generally include the filing of the dispute, agency review or record development, forum-specific adjudication, and, in some cases, appellate review, each with its own typical timeframe.

In U.S. federal procurement, foreign bidders are generally afforded the same rights and opportunities as domestic bidders, provided they are responsible, eligible to compete, and comply with applicable laws and regulations. The principle of full and open competition outlined in FAR 6.101 applies without discrimination based on nationality, except where specific exclusions exist.

Foreign bidders who meet the definition of “interested parties” under FAR 33.101 can file bid protests at the agency level, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). An “interested party” is an entity with a direct economic interest in the outcome of a procurement, such as being in line for the award or having a significant stake in the protest’s outcome. Notably, foreign ownership or control does not inherently restrict a bidder’s rights to protest, as long as the bidder qualifies as an interested party and the procurement is not subject to specific national security or statutory restrictions (FAR 33.104).

While the U.S. aims to promote full and open competition, FAR Part 6 outlines circumstances where competition may be limited, including:

• National Security: Procurements involving security clearances or classified information may exclude foreign bidders due to concerns over foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI).
• International Agreements: Certain procurements are limited by international agreements or statutory mandates requiring domestic sourcing (FAR 6.302-4).
• Sanctions: FAR Part 25 prohibits procurement from sanctioned countries, entities, or individuals, as determined by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or other applicable authorities (FAR 25.7).

The rights of foreign bidders also depend on whether the bidder’s host country is a signatory to relevant international agreements, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) or bilateral trade agreements. Under the GPA, foreign bidders from member states must be afforded non-discriminatory treatment for procurements covered by the agreement, unless specific exceptions apply. Non-GPA members and bidders from countries with no reciprocal trade agreements may face restrictions or reduced access to certain federally funded procurements.

No additional rules and procedures exist other than those previously outlined above.

In the U.S., public procurement disputes can be addressed by specialized tribunals and courts, depending on the nature of the claim and its procedural posture. As detailed in Question 16, bid protests arising during the pre-award or award stages of federal procurement are primarily heard by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. However, disputes arising during contract performance fall under the jurisdiction of the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), codified at 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq.

Under the CDA, contractors may address disputes related to goods, services, construction, property maintenance, or property disposal by filing claims with the contracting officer. These claims can then proceed to one of two forums:

1. Agency Board of Contract Appeals (BCA): Specialized boards such as the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) or the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) handle disputes based on the type of federal agency involved.
2. U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC): This court serves as an alternative for contractors seeking judicial resolution of their disputes, offering broader procedural tools like discovery and the potential for a trial.

To initiate a claim under the CDA, contractors must: (1) Submit a written claim to the contracting officer, detailing the dispute; (2) Properly certify claims exceeding $100,000 with an authorized representative’s signature, including a specific monetary amount; and (3) File the claim within the six-year statute of limitations from the date of the dispute’s origination (41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1), (4)).  If the contracting officer does not issue a decision within the required timeframe, the claim is deemed denied, and the contractor may proceed with an appeal. Contractors may also appeal directly if they receive an adverse decision. The choice of forum—BCA or COFC—is binding and cannot be changed once the contractor elects a venue.

There has been a growing emphasis on compliance with procedural requirements for CDA claims, particularly regarding certification and timeliness. Additionally, the Federal Circuit continues to refine its interpretation of critical issues, such as the scope of “deemed denials” and jurisdictional requirements for BCAs and the COFC. Contractors should remain vigilant about these procedural nuances to ensure their claims are properly preserved and adjudicated.

Yes, post-award contract modifications are subject to strict regulation under U.S. federal procurement law. Contractors may challenge such modifications before the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Court of Federal Claims if they believe the government has made modifications that significantly alter the contract to circumvent statutory competition requirements.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has clarified that the key inquiry is whether the government’s modifications substantially changed the contract’s scope, not whether the modifications breached the contract. To succeed, protesters must demonstrate that the changes deviate materially from the original contract terms—such as performance scope, duration, or costs—and that the original contract did not adequately notify offerors of the possibility of such modifications. The burden of proof in these cases is high, as courts and tribunals often defer to the government’s discretion in contract administration.

Changes to Supplier Identity

Changes to the identity of a contractor—such as those arising from mergers, acquisitions, or asset sales—are also tightly regulated. The Anti-Assignment Act (41 U.S.C. § 15) prohibits the transfer or assignment of federal contracts to third parties without the express consent of the government, ensuring that the government retains control over which entities fulfill its contracts. When applicable, a change in contractor identity requires a novation agreement, as outlined in FAR 42.1204, which must be executed by the transferor (existing contractor), transferee (new contractor), and the government.

Exceptions to the Anti-Assignment Act:

• Mergers or corporate reorganizations may avoid Anti-Assignment Act restrictions if the successor entity retains substantially the same performance capabilities.
• Contracts that explicitly permit transfer without government consent may also bypass Anti-Assignment requirements.

However, even when novation is permissible, changes in ownership or structure may disqualify the contractor from eligibility for certain types of federal work. For example, under Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations (13 CFR § 121), a small business that merges with or is acquired by a larger entity may lose eligibility for small-business set-aside contracts due to affiliation rules. Similarly, firms qualifying under specific ownership categories (e.g., minority-, veteran-, or woman-owned businesses) may lose their eligibility if ownership changes.

Pre-Award Challenges

Challenges may also arise in the context of pre-award transactions. While the FAR provides a framework for novation agreements for post-award contract transfers, it does not establish a mechanism for transferring offers or proposals submitted before a corporate transaction. Agencies are obligated to evaluate the impact of mergers, asset sales, or stock acquisitions on a contractor’s eligibility and performance capability before awarding a contract. Failure to do so could render the award vulnerable to challenges at the GAO or other forums.

Direct awards, or sole-source procurements, are less common than competitive contracts in US federal procurement, as competition is the legal standard required by the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). However, they remain a critical and utilized tool for federal agencies under specific, tightly regulated exceptions. The overall trend, while fluctuating, has seen sole-source contracts used strategically, reflecting  administrative focus on streamlining procurement and meeting specific socioeconomic goals.

Grounds for Making a Direct Award. Direct awards are permitted only under the exceptions to full and open competition outlined in FAR 6.302. Each exception requires agencies to meet strict criteria and to thoroughly document their rationale in a Justification and Approval (J&A). The seven statutory exceptions are:

• FAR 6.302-1: Only One Responsible Source: Applicable when only one known source can meet the requirement due to the unique or specialized nature of the goods or services (e.g., proprietary rights, follow-on contracts for highly specialized equipment).
• FAR 6.302-2: Unusual and Compelling Urgency: Used when urgent circumstances, such as threats to human safety or critical agency operations, do not allow time for competitive procedures. This cannot be justified by a lack of advance planning.
• FAR 6.302-3: Industrial Mobilization; Engineering, Developmental, or Research Capability; or Expert Services: Invoked to preserve essential capabilities, maintain critical industrial mobilization bases, or secure expert services critical to national security or the industrial base.
• FAR 6.302-4: International Agreement: When procurement must comply with the terms of an international agreement or a written directive from a foreign government.
• FAR 6.302-5: Authorized or Required by Statute: When a statute expressly mandates procurement from a specified source or through non-competitive means (e.g., certain small business set-asides like 8(a) sole-source awards under $30 million, or acquisitions from Federal Prison Industries).
• FAR 6.302-6: National Security: Justified when the disclosure of the agency’s needs would compromise national security, not merely because the acquisition is classified.
• FAR 6.302-7: Public Interest: Used rarely, when no other exception applies, and the agency head determines it is in the government’s best interest to proceed without competition.

It is noteworthy that the current Administration’s focus on streamlining procurement and meeting socioeconomic goals has led to the strategic use of sole-source awards. While the total number of sole-source awards fluctuates, the use of FAR 6.302-5 (Authorized by Statute) has been a key tool, particularly for Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goals (such as 8(a) sole-source contracts), which the administration is seeking to expand to meet its equity objectives. This is often perceived as an increase in non-competitive awards, though it serves a statutory purpose defined by Congress.

Grounds for Challenging a Direct Award. A decision to make a direct award can be challenged by an unsuccessful bidder (or potential bidder) before the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). The challenge focuses on whether the agency’s justification and approval process was rational and compliant with FAR Part 6. Common grounds for a successful challenge include:

• Insufficient Justification: The agency’s rationale fails to meet the strict criteria outlined in the relevant FAR 6.302 exception. Protesters often argue that the agency exaggerated the urgency (FAR 6.302-2) or failed to prove that only one source could satisfy the requirement (FAR 6.302-1).
• Failure to Conduct Adequate Market Research: FAR 6.303 mandates that agencies conduct market research and explore alternative sources. A common challenge is that the agency’s market research was insufficient, overlooked, or improperly excluded capable sources.
• Procedural Lapses: The agency failed to secure the required level of Justification and Approval (J&A) documentation from the appropriate approval authority for the dollar value of the contract.

Agencies must ensure their decision-making is well-documented and robustly reasoned to withstand the heightened scrutiny that all sole-source awards, particularly high-value ones, face.

The US public procurement rules have demonstrated selective flexibility in response to supply chain disruptions (including those stemming from the war in Ukraine and broader geopolitical tensions), primarily by leveraging existing contract administration tools. However, the dominant trend since 2024 and continuing throughout 2025 has been a significant reduction in long-term flexibility due to the codification and aggressive enforcement of domestic content mandates.

Adaptation and Flexibility Mechanisms (Short-Term). The primary tools that have allowed contractors and agencies to mitigate immediate supply chain risks and cost volatility are the use of existing contract administration clauses. Agencies and contractors have continued to rely on Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) Clauses (FAR 52.216-2) and similar agency-specific clauses to address fluctuating costs and supply uncertainties. This increased flexibility in processing EPAs allows contractors on large, long-term contracts to react more quickly to sudden spikes in material or labor costs caused by global events. Additionally, Simplified Acquisition Procedures (FAR Part 13) continue to be utilized to rapidly procure necessary items or services when supply chain disruptions create urgent needs that fall below the simplified acquisition threshold. These mechanisms allow the government to react to short-term crises without violating competition requirements.

Strategic Shift to Rigid Domestic Content Mandates (Long-Term). The most significant development impacting the global supply chain response is the codification and increased stringency of domestic content requirements, which explicitly reduces flexibility in favor of bolstering US industrial capacity and security. This strategic shift has been heavily driven by the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act and the phased increases to the Buy American Act (BAA).

• BABA Finalization in 2025: Implementation of BABA, which applies to federally funded infrastructure projects, has become mandatory. A key development in early 2025 was the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publishing a final rule that terminated its longstanding general waiver for manufactured products. This effectively ended a decades-old policy, establishing strict BABA standards and requiring manufactured products to contain more than 55% of components by cost that are of US origin. This move significantly reduces the administrative flexibility previously enjoyed by contractors managing global supply chains for infrastructure components.
• BAA Threshold Increases: The Buy American Act (BAA) requirements for federal acquisitions (as distinct from BABA) continued to tighten in 2024 and 2025. In calendar year 2024, the domestic content threshold for manufactured products under the BAA increased to 65% (FAR Case 2022-006). This threshold is scheduled to increase further to 75% in calendar year 2029. This phased increase reduces the margin for foreign content and mandates continuous supply chain re-evaluation for long-term contracts. Furthermore, the FAR is being amended to establish enhanced price preference frameworks for end products and construction material deemed critical to the US supply chain (often tied to national security, like certain semiconductors or batteries).
• Supply Chain Security: Regulations issued under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA) and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) impose new prohibitions that force contractors to rapidly restructure their supply chains. New FAR rules continue to implement prohibitions on the procurement of certain unmanned aircraft systems (drones) and semiconductor products/services manufactured or assembled by covered foreign entities. Additionally, suppliers of software are increasingly required to comply with, and attest to, strict cybersecurity standards (e.g., NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2) to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), further complicating the use of globally sourced IT and cloud services.

As such, the clear long-term trend in US procurement rules is a move toward more rigid domestic content mandates and specific foreign-source prohibitions, fundamentally altering global supply chain strategies for contractors in a direct response to global geopolitical and security risks.