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 | 5 min read | 06.01.26

California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed

On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims....