1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |FAR Council Introduces Limits on the Single-Offer Adequate Price Competition Exception

FAR Council Introduces Limits on the Single-Offer Adequate Price Competition Exception

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.01.19

On June 12, 2019, the FAR Council issued a final rule amending the FAR to address an exception from certified cost or pricing data requirements when price is based on adequate competition.  In particular, the final rule amends the definition of “adequate price competition” in FAR 15.403-1(c) for submission of certified cost or pricing data to DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard so that the adequate price competition exception now applies only when “two or more responsible offerors, competing independently, submit priced offers that satisfy the Government’s expressed requirement.”  This means that if only one offer is received, even if submitted with the expectation of competition, the exception no longer applies.  For all other agencies, the exception still applies even when only one offer is received, provided there is a reasonable expectation that two or more responsible offerors would submit offers, or price analysis demonstrates that the proposed price is reasonable.  Though this rule represents a change to the FAR, we note that a similar rule has existed in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement at 215.371-3 for a number of years.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights