1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Here We Go Again: DFARS Changes to the "Only One Offer" Rule

Here We Go Again: DFARS Changes to the "Only One Offer" Rule

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.30.19

As we noted in a recent post, for several years, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) has contained a rule at DFARS 215.371-3(a) that if only one offer is received, even if submitted with the expectation of competition, the adequate price competition exception from the requirement to submit certified cost or pricing data does not apply unless an official at a level above the Contracting Officer (CO) approves the determination that the price is reasonable. On June 28, 2019, DoD issued a final rule to implement Section 822 of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, which eliminates DFARS 215.371-3(a) and, thus, the applicability of the adequate price competition exception under FAR 15.403-1(b)(1) to single-offer situations. The rule also, among other things:

  • Streamlines the existing requirements at DFARS 215.371-3(b), with additional emphasis on the requirement to obtain certified cost or pricing data when only one offer is received; and
  • Imposes responsibility on offerors for determining whether a subcontractor qualifies for an exception from the certified cost or pricing data requirement on the basis of adequate competition.

On July 16, 2019, DoD issued minor technical corrections to the rule, which is effective July 31, 2019.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....