Lexology In-Depth: Government Procurement – USA

Introduction

The government procurement system of the United States of America is complex and ever-evolving, especially recently with the Trump Administration's new priorities. Titles 10 and 41 of the United States Code (USC) set the foundation for procurement law. Those laws and other related statutes are effectuated by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), located under Title 48 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).² While the EU directives do not apply, US federal government contracting is bound by the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Government Procurement Agreement, albeit with long-standing carveouts for small business set-asides and domestic preferences. Annually, the US Congress passes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), impacting several aspects of procurement law, including spending and policy.

The policies and people who administer the US procurement system constantly weigh competing principles: open competition versus efficiency; efficiency versus best value; best value versus client satisfaction; client satisfaction versus open competition, etc. These tensions inform every stage of the acquisition process, from drafting solicitations to awarding contracts and managing performance. The responsibility for reconciling these competing imperatives rests squarely on the shoulders of the Contracting Officer, who carries the weight of balancing them in every award they make. Legislative reforms, regulatory overhauls and court decisions have moved the US procurement system in different directions over time, shifting how Contracting Officers and the contracting community alike manage these competing requirements.

In the United States, there are multi-volume legal treatises dedicated to interpreting single parts of the FAR. Accordingly, no one chapter can provide a one-stop, comprehensive guide to navigating the US federal procurement system. This chapter instead endeavours to equip its readers with an overview to empower them to seek and receive proper, detailed guidance.

Year in review

Contraction in federal government contracting

This past year, 2025, was a tumultuous year for those involved with federal government contracting. Shortly after the inauguration of President Trump in January, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an informal 'department' carved out of the president's staff and not created by law, engaged in an initiative that resulted in the termination of approximately 13,231 federal contracts worth approximately US$59 billion.³ These terminations have introduced uncertainty into a business sector historically considered one of the most stable in the United States. The ripple effects have ranged from the spawning of a new cottage industry around the preparation of termination settlement proposals, to changes in the ways government contractor mergers and acquisitions have been structured compared to years past. In addition, as of the date of the writing of this chapter, there has been a lapse in federal government funding, as a result of a disagreement between Congress and the Trump Administration regarding spending priorities; a political dispute that stops much government spending and contracting in the US system.

The revolutionary FAR overhaul

On 15 April 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order entitled 'Restoring Common Sense to Federal Procurement' that ordered the FAR Council, which is responsible for managing procurement regulations, and the heads of executive branch agencies to 'amend the FAR to ensure that it contains only provisions that are required by statute or that are otherwise necessary to support simplicity and usability, strengthen the efficacy of the procurement system, or protect economic or national security interest'.⁴ Thus, as of May 2025, the US government began the most sweeping re-write of the FAR since its inception in the 1980s. Marketed as the 'Revolutionary FAR Overhaul', this initiative encompasses major changes to numerous parts of the procurement regulations.⁵ As the government works to implement the overhaul, various agencies are using agency-specific deviations to current regulations as an interim measure.

Among the most significant shifts so far is the removal of non-statutory, prescriptive language and a move toward plain language. Much of what was previously instructive or procedural is being excised or relocated to the FAR Companion Guide, Practitioner Albums and agency 'buying guides'. The Executive Order also created a new four-year 'regulatory sunset' intended to remove non-statutory FAR provisions, unless specifically renewed by the FAR Council.

Taken as a whole, the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul is transforming the procurement landscape for both government and contractors. The new changes are ostensibly intended to provide Contracting Officers with more flexibility and fewer bright-line rules. For contractors, the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul means more time investing in tracking agency deviations, more time monitoring companion materials (like the FAR Companion Guide and agency 'buying guides') and more time arguing substance rather than simply pointing to prescriptive FAR language. The theoretical benefit of moving non-statutory FAR provisions out of the FAR is to streamline procurements and create less overall litigation because the guides are advisory without the force of law and, thus, theoretically could not be used as a basis to challenge a contract award decision. The coming years will test the effectiveness of the overhaul concept.

US acquisition of artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) development has been exponentially fast and so has the development of US AI procurement policy. In March 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a government-wide Memorandum M-24-10 to begin the conversation about AI governance and risk.⁶ In September 2024, building on that initiative, the OMB issued another Memorandum, M-24-18, entitled 'Advancing the responsible acquisition of artificial intelligence in government'.⁷ This memorandum provides guidance to agencies and Contracting Officers specifically on procuring AI by directing agencies to embed risk management, transparency and competition safeguards into solicitation and contracts.

The memorandum casts a wide net, as M-24-18 intends to advise agencies on the acquisition of AI systems or services, regardless of whether the procured AI system or service is standalone or integrated into broader information technology (IT) products, offerings or services.⁸ Agencies procuring AI now must consider four risk areas: privacy, civil rights, safety and security; and contractors should understand the new demands in these procurements.⁹ Contractors potentially must also be prepared to disclose training data sources, reporting any proposed use of AI as part of their proposal submissions, and demonstrating bias-mitigation safeguards, among many other requirements.¹⁰ Offerors will be evaluated, not only on technical capability and price, but also on the responsible management of AI systems. Overall, the central tenets of M-24-18 focus on rights- and safety-impacting AI, as well as the avoidance of vendor lock-in.

Bid protest standing after Percipient.ai

On 28 August 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision noteworthy to the government contracting community that addressed the question of who qualifies as an 'interested party' at the US Court of Federal Claims to challenge a contract award by a bid protest.¹¹ This statutory interpretation case carries significant importance for federal procurement because it seemingly resolved an area of law that had become unsettled.

Only a certain class of entities may 'protest' (i.e., challenge) a US government contract award or solicitation before the US Court of Federal Claims.¹² Specifically, only an 'interested party' may make such a challenge,¹³ but Congress never defined 'interested party' in the governing statute, forcing the court to do so in Percipient.ai.

The court held that the definition of 'interested party' in the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) was the correct one. That definition states that an 'interested party' is 'an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract'.¹⁴ It reasoned that the lengthy contextual history of the statute and intended purpose of certain statutes requires using the CICA definition. However, among the concerns with this decision is that the CICA definition unduly limits 'interested parties' beyond what Congress originally intended.¹⁵

Cybersecurity maturity model certification

Cybersecurity remains one of the most pressing compliance issues for federal contractors and subcontractors. On 16 December 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a final rule introducing the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification 2.0 (CMMC) Program.¹⁶ The rule details and defines security controls, assessment procedures and other requirements. On 10 September 2025, the DoD published another final rule to allow contracts to include CMMC certification as a contractual requirement effective 10 November 2025.¹⁷ In furtherance of the new CMMC requirements, a new clause in the DoD supplement to the FAR, DFARS 252.204-7025, and an updated DFARS 252.204-7021 provision detail the new certification requirements for contractors. This new certification requirements come with False Claims Act¹⁸ liability for misrepresentations regarding compliance. Contractors and subcontractors that proactively align with and understand the CMMC Program are better positioned as CMMC matures and becomes contractually enforceable in solicitation and contracts starting in November 2025 and beyond.

Scope of procurement regulation

Regulated authorities

The FAR applies to the acquisition of supplies or services by and for the use of the Federal Government, by an 'executive agency'. The FAR defines the term 'executive agency' broadly to include most executive departments, military departments and independent agencies, as well as wholly owned government corporations. Most agencies have agency-specific supplements to the FAR (e.g., DFARS for the US Department of Defense). Notable federal entities not regulated by the FAR include the Federal Aviation Administration, the US Mint, the US Postal Service, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Nor does the FAR apply to Congress or the Judiciary. The FAR also does not govern state or local government procurements.¹⁹

Thus, the FAR's rules only regulate the conduct of executive agencies and entities that have contracts with particular executive agencies. While the FAR contains all the solicitation provisions and contract clauses that executive agencies must place in contracts, in the event an executive agency does not include a provision in a procurement contract that is considered a 'deeply ingrained strand of public procurement policy' and required by regulation, courts have read those clauses into federal procurement contracts under what is called the Christian doctrine.²⁰ In other words, contractors can be bound by FAR clauses that are not in their contracts but that should be.

Regulated contracts

The FAR regulates acquisitions of supplies and services (including construction) with appropriated funds.²¹ While agencies may also use grants and cooperative agreements, neither of which require that the recipients provide goods or services in exchange for the money, they are not generally governed by the FAR (subject to exceptions beyond the scope of this chapter).²²

The amount of regulation of a contract usually depends on the value of the contract. Under the FAR, the micro-purchase threshold (

Generally, modifications to contracts must be within scope of the original contract. Otherwise, US procurement law will consider the modification a new procurement subject to the same legal requirements as new contract (i.e., competition). While the Anti-Assignment Act generally restricts the unilateral transfer or novation of a US contract, the law permits a transfer or novation conditioned upon approval from the US government.

Special contractual forms

Framework agreements and central purchasing

While executive agencies procure a wide variety of numerous individual contracts, the FAR permits the use of large, multiple-award, multi-agency contracting vehicles. These include government-wide acquisition contracts, multi-agency indefinite-delivery contracts and blanket purchasing agreements, each of which are most frequently used under the General Services Administration's Federal Supply Schedule.²³ These vehicles are intended to create efficiency by narrowing the competition for subsequent procurements, while complying with statutory and regulatory requirements, allowing for quick and repeat ordering by numerous government buyers.

Joint ventures

The US procurement system also encourages joint ventures. A common example comes from the US Small Business Administration (SBA) mentor-protégé programme, which permits certain approved joint ventures (usually comprised of a small business and a large business) to compete for small business set-aside opportunities, if the parties agree to comply with work allocation and management restrictions that leave the small business in control while the large business mentor agrees to provide guidance and business development support to the protégé. This arrangement allows large businesses to participate in opportunities that would otherwise be foreclosed as the cost of sharing know-how with smaller, newer contractors.

Other arrangements

Public–private partnerships and concession arrangements are less common at the federal level than in many other jurisdictions. They appear most often in the transportation, energy and natural resource sectors, and are governed by separate legislation from procurement statutes and regulations. Grant and cooperative agreements, which are growing in numbers, are not treated as procurement contracts and fall under different and distinct rules.

The bidding process

Notice

The United States maintains a government-wide portal, www.SAM.gov, as its central platform for synopses and solicitations.²⁴ For most contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold, agencies must provide public notice on SAM.gov of their intent to procure, outline the requirements and release solicitation documents.

Procedures

The United States employs two primary procurement mechanisms: FAR Part 14 (sealed bidding) and FAR Part 15 (negotiated procurement). For sealed bids, agencies issue invitations for bids, receive sealed submissions and make award to the lowest-priced responsible bidder. For negotiated procurements, agencies will issue solicitations, receive quotes/proposals and make award to either the lowest-price technically acceptable or the offeror that presents the best value to the government. For procurements valued below $350,000, agencies may use simplified acquisition procedures (FAR Part 13) to move more quickly and efficiently.

Amending bids

Amendments to bids or proposals are tightly regulated, but offerors may generally make changes before the closing date listed in the Solicitation. However, aside from narrow exceptions, late submissions are not considered.

Eligibility

Qualification to bid

Those seeking to do business with the federal government must create an account on SAM.gov, which requires detailed business and financial information, as well as representations and certifications to complete the registration process. As the federal government seeks to do business with only responsible contractors, SAM.gov serves as the database where contracting officers confirm the entity receiving the contract is not debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment or excluded from receiving contracts.²⁵

Generally, a registered and responsible contractor can compete for any contract, subject to certain exceptions that are usually explained in the solicitation. One common exception is a set-aside contract for certain types of small businesses certified by the SBA as meeting strict eligibility requirements. Another common exception is a competition for a task order under an existing indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. In that instance, the terms of the IDIQ contract only allow awardees under the overarching IDIQ to compete for task orders.

Conflicts of interest

The FAR addresses the potential for both individuals and organisations to have conflicts of interest.²⁶ FAR 3.101 makes clear the expectation for everyone (individuals and organisations) involved with procurement that 'Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none.'

FAR Subpart 9.5 governs organisational conflicts of interest (OCIs), the types of conflicts entities already performing in a federal procurement contract may encounter by virtue of being embedded with their federal government clients. The three main types of OCIs are: (1) biased ground rules; (2) impaired objectivity; and (3) unequal access to information.²⁷ A biased ground rules OCI can occur when an individual associated with a contractor bidding on the contract is involved with the preparation of a statement of work or evaluation criteria for the contract. Impaired objectivity can occur when a company secures a contract that could result in it monitoring or evaluating its own work. Unequal access to information can occur when a contractor receives proprietary, restricted, non-public information during the course of its performance of a contract and can use that information to its benefit in receiving another contract. If not mitigated or mitigable, these OCIs can be disqualifying.

Foreign suppliers

There is no blanket restriction on foreign suppliers contracting with the United States. According to USASpending.gov, in 2024 the United States obligated US$43.1 billion in contracts to foreign suppliers.²⁸ However, there are some restrictions on foreign suppliers.

Unsurprisingly, however, given the nature of their work, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy have limitations on contracting with certain foreign entities.²⁹ These restrictions are part of a larger subpart under Title 10 of the US Code titled 'Limitations on Procurement for Certain Foreign Sources'.³⁰ In addition, there is a government-wide prohibition on contracting with a foreign incorporated entity that is treated as an inverted domestic corporation, or any subsidiary of such entity.³¹

Pursuant to the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), as part of being permitted to receive a facility security clearance (FCL) to handle classified information, the supplier has to be organised under the laws of the United States.³² The supplier also has to be located within the United States.³³ When a foreign supplier creates a US subsidiary to compete for a contract involving classified information, the supplier's subsidiary will have to demonstrate it is sufficiently free from foreign ownership, control or influence.³⁴

Award

Evaluating tenders

The terms of a solicitation will govern the standards and evaluation criteria for evaluating an offer. Sealed bids are usually awarded to the lowest bid that satisfies the terms of the solicitation basis. Negotiated procurements usually use a best value trade-off mechanism that weights criteria and provides the government the ability to balance the technical factors of the offer with the offer's cost or price. Due to the risk of bid protest, there is great emphasis on agencies creating a contemporaneous administrative record to defend the basis of their award decision.

National interest and public policy considerations

The United States government uses federal procurement policies to advance numerous national interests and public policy considerations. The terms of the solicitation will usually put offerors on notice of the interests and public policy considerations being advanced through FAR solicitation provisions and contract clauses. Some examples include the advancing wage and hour requirements,³⁵ drug-free workplaces,³⁶ anti-kickback procedures³⁷ and equal employment opportunities.³⁸

FAR Part 25 sets out the policies and procedures for the federal government acquiring supplies, services and construction materials, as well as performing contracts outside of the United States.³⁹ In doing so, FAR Part 25 implements the Buy American Act (BAA), trade agreements and other related laws and regulations. The BAA does not prohibit federal agencies from purchasing foreign products, but generally (subject to exceptions) requires the contracting officer to increase the cost of foreign end products by 20 to 30 per cent depending on the identity of the lowest-priced domestic end product offeror, for purposes of price comparison during evaluation.⁴⁰

The United States government also promotes social and economic polices through SBA. The government's general goal is that small businesses should receive 23 per cent of all federal contracting dollars. Of that 23 per cent, the government seeks to award certain percentages to women-owned small businesses (5 per cent), small disadvantaged businesses (5 per cent), service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (5 per cent) and small businesses in historically underutilised business zones (HUBZones) (3 per cent).

Information flow

The flow of information in US federal procurements can be summarised by one aspirational word: fairness. The entire procurement system is designed around the idea that all parties will have an equal opportunity to compete with the same material information. The Procurement Integrity Act, which is integrated into the FAR, prohibits both the knowing disclosure and receipt of contractor bid or proposal information and source selection information before the award of a contract to which the information relates.⁴¹ The act sets the foundation of fairness that permeates all aspects of federal procurement.

Prior to issuing a solicitation, agencies are afforded great leeway in how they conduct market research to learn how to best acquire items and services that meet their needs.⁴² After the issuance of a solicitation but prior to a proposal's due date, an agency may engage in an exchange of information, often in the form of a question-and-answer period prior to submitting proposals.⁴³ Ultimately, regardless of when information is shared from the government, the touchstone from the government's perspective is transparency to avoid creating an unfair competitive advantage.⁴⁴

Once an offeror submits a proposal, the contract type will often dictate the timing and nature of any permissible written or oral exchanges with offerors. The two most common exchanges occur under FAR Part 15 are clarifications and discussions. Discussions and clarifications are defined terms of art under FAR 15 and are commonly the focus of bid protest litigation, when allegations of unequal or unfair information exchanges are alleged.

Depending on the terms of the solicitation, an unsuccessful offeror may have the right to request a brief explanation of the award decision or a debriefing.⁴⁵ The contents of a debriefing will vary significantly on both the timing of the request and the procuring agency (with the Department of Defense having enhanced debriefing requirements).⁴⁶

Challenging awards

Out of the millions of contracts issued by the federal government, only several thousand are challenged in any given year, making bid protests relatively uncommon. Nevertheless, the ones that are filed can be impactful, both by gaining attention and potentially delaying contract awards. Common events that usually trigger a bid protest are:

1. an incumbent contractor not winning the follow-on award;
2. the consolidation of multiple contracts into one award, with not enough awards to satisfy all prior incumbents;
3. contracts longer than five years;
4. contracts for dollar amounts significantly greater than that usually awarded by the agency;
5. contracts with a low barrier to entry for competition; and
6. contracts that have the effect of preventing unsuccessful contractors from participating with certain agency procurements at all for significant periods of time.

When seeking to file a bid protest, either pre-award or post-award, a party satisfying the forum's interested party standard can file with the procuring agency, Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Court of Federal Claims (COFC).

Procedures

The filing of a bid protest before an agency is governed by FAR 33.103 and any relevant agency FAR supplements. A GAO protest is governed by CICA, by FAR 33.104 and by 4 C.F.R. Part 21. When properly and timely filed, agency-level protests and GAO protests will automatically trigger a stay of performance or award that will maintain the status quo until the protest is resolved.⁴⁷ Protests based on patent solicitation improprieties generally must be filed before the deadline for receipt of proposals.⁴⁸ All other agency-level and GAO protests must be filed within 10 days of when the basis for the protest was known or should have been known.⁴⁹ The FAR states that '[a]gencies shall make their best efforts to resolve agency protests within 35 days after the protest is filed'.⁵⁰ The 'GAO issues its recommendation on a protest within 100 days from the date of filing of the protest with the GAO, or within 65 days under the express option'.⁵¹

The filing of a bid protest before the COFC is governed by the specific rules of the COFC. A protest relating to patent solicitation defects generally must be brought prior to the deadline for receipt of initial proposals.⁵² Otherwise, the statute of limitations for filing in the COFC is six years.⁵³ There are no automatic stays when filing at the COFC. Litigants are required to move for temporary and preliminary restraining orders when necessary. Accordingly, it is usually in a litigant's best interest to move quickly to file in the COFC to open the option to seek an injunction. There is no deadline for the COFC to issue an opinion.

Grounds for challenges to contract awards

There are many different potential grounds of protest. For pre-award protests, some of the most common grounds are:

1. a patent (i.e., obvious) ambiguity or defect;
2. unreasonable evaluation criteria; and
3. inconsistency between the solicitation and a statutory or regulatory requirement.

For post-award protests, some of the most common grounds are:

1. a latent (i.e., non-obvious) ambiguity or defect;
2. failure to follow the evaluation criteria; and
3. the existence of an organisational conflict of interest affecting the awardee.

Remedies

The forum selected by a protester will affect the remedies available to it. The GAO's remedies are set forth in 4 CFR § 21.8. However, the remedies are merely recommendations of the GAO, and agencies that elect not to follow the recommendations are reported to Congress.⁵⁴ In response to an agency-level protest, an agency may take any remedy the GAO could have recommended to the agency.⁵⁵ The provisional and final remedies that the COFC may order are established in Title VIII of the Rules of the COFC.⁵⁶

Special considerations

While the federal government of the United States may be the largest single customer and purchaser in the country, there are significant government contracting opportunities spread across the 50 states and the District of Columbia in the state, local and education (SLED) contracting sectors. Some estimates place SLED procurement spending at US$1.5 trillion per year.⁵⁷

Outlook and conclusions

The major changes to federal government contracting in 2025 are expected to continue to have ripple effects in 2026 and beyond. While a large number of government contracts were terminated in 2025, it remains to be seen if Congress will actually cut federal spending in its 2026 budget – which has not been agreed at the time of this writing – or just reallocate spending to other sectors of the federal government. If federal spending remains near 2025 levels into 2026 and beyond, federal government contracting may provide a tremendous opportunity for contractors and those who support them. This is particularly true in the foreign aid and international development sectors, which are undergoing their own overhaul and the Department of State steps in for the now eliminated United States Agency for International Development.

Ultimately, the US government procurement system looks like it will remain one of the most complex and dynamic contracting systems in the world. The FAR Overhaul will continue to reshape procurement regulations, ushering in a new era in US government contracting. OMB's AI efforts will continue to push the US government into the twenty-first century with technology while putting greater emphasis on cybersecurity. As we look to 2026, change appears to be the only constant on the horizon for the US procurement system.

Republished with permission. This article, "Lexology In-Depth: Government Procurement – USA," was published by Lexology. (login required)

Footnotes

¹ Aron Beezley and Nathaniel Greeson are partners, Patrick Quigley is counsel, and Eugene Benick and Steven Herrera are senior attorneys at Bradley Arant.

² For instance, FAR 1.000 can be found under 48 CFR § 1.000.

³ Department of Government Efficiency, https://doge.gov/savings (last visited 1 October 2025).

⁴ Exec. Order No. 14275, 90 Fed. Reg. 16447 (2025).

⁵ See ibid.

⁶ Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence (28 March 2024) (available at: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/M-24-10-Advancing-Governance-Innovation-and-Risk-Management-for-Agency-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf) (last visited 1 October 2025).

⁷ Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Off. of the President, Advancing the Responsible Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence in Government (24 September 2024) (available at: https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/M-24-18-AI-Acquisition-Memorandum.pdf) (last visited 19 September 2025).

⁸ id. at 3.

⁹ id. at 6.

¹⁰ id. at 9-16.

¹¹ Percipient.AI, Inc v. United States, No. 2023-1970, 2025 WL 2472671 (Fed. Cir. 28 August 2025).

¹² 28 U.S.C. § 1491.

¹³ ibid.

¹⁴ Percipient.AI, Inc, 2025 WL 2472671, at *12.

¹⁵ ibid. at *16.

¹⁶ Department of Defense, Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program, 89 Fed. Reg. 83092 (2025).

¹⁷ Department of Defense, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Assessing Contractor Implementation of Cybersecurity Requirements (DFARS Case 2019-D041), 90 Fed. Reg. 43560 (2025).

¹⁸ The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, is a federal law that imposes liability on individuals and entities that knowingly submit, or cause the submission of, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the US government.

¹⁹ See 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.317–200.327.

²⁰ GL Christian and Assocs v. United States, 312 F.2d 418, 426-27 (Ct. Cl. 1963).

²¹ FAR 1.104; 2.101.

²² See 31 U.S.C. §§ 6304-6305.

²³ FAR Part 8.

²⁴ FAR Part 5.

²⁵ See FAR 9.405.

²⁶ FAR Part 3 and Subpart 9.5.

²⁷ See FAR 9.505-2–9.505-4.

²⁸ USASpending.gov, Time Period: 'FY 2024' + Award Type: 'All Contracts' + 'All Indefinite Delivery Vehicles' + Recipient Type: 'Foreign Owned'.

²⁹ 10 U.S.C. § 4874.

³⁰ 10 U.S.C. §§ 4871–4875.

³¹ FAR 9.108-2.

³² 32 C.F.R. § 117.9(c)(2)(i)-(ii).

³³ 32 C.F.R. § 117.9(c)(3).

³⁴ 32 CFR § 117.11.

³⁵ See FAR 52.222-6, 52.222-7, 52.222-20, 52.222-41.

³⁶ FAR 52.226-7.

³⁷ FAR 52.203-7.

³⁸ See FAR 52.222-26, 52.222-35, 52.222-36, 52.222-37, 52.222-40.

³⁹ FAR 25.000.

⁴⁰ See generally, FAR 25.106.

⁴¹ FAR 3.104-3(a)–(b) (citing 41 U.S.C. 2102); see also FAR 3.104.

⁴² See FAR 10.000, 10.002.

⁴³ FAR 15.201.

⁴⁴ FAR 15.201(f).

⁴⁵ FAR 8.405-2(d); 15.505–15.506.

⁴⁶ id.; DFARS 215.506.

⁴⁷ See FAR 33.103(f)(1), (f)(3).

⁴⁸ FAR 33.103(e)

⁴⁹ FAR 33.103(e).

⁵⁰ FAR 33.103(g).

⁵¹ FAR 33.104(f).

⁵² See Blue & Gold Fleet, LP v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

⁵³ 28 U.S.C. § 2501.

⁵⁴ See FAR 33.104(g), 31 U.S.C. § 3554(e)(2).

⁵⁵ FAR 33.102(b).

⁵⁶ See also 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2).

⁵⁷ See Stephen A Hamill, Achieving the Full Promise and Potential of Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing, 1 October 2021, https://napawash.org/standing-panel-blog/achieving-the-full-promise-and-potential-of-intergovernmental-cooperative-purchasing (last visited 1 October 2025).