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.
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.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
