Use case
Contract costs are only as recoverable as the procurement behind them. Ask what 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.317–200.327 and PAPPG v5 Chapter 6 require of a contract, sole-source justification, or procurement policy — with cited sources.
Citations checked against current published sources 2026-09-04
"We sole-sourced this in the first 72 hours under public exigency. Was that allowed, and how much longer can we keep using the contract before FEMA calls it noncompliant?"
State and territorial agencies and Tribal Nations follow 2 C.F.R. § 200.317 — their own non-federal procurement policies plus four federal standards (§§ 200.321, 200.322, 200.323, and 200.327). PAPPG's printed text names only § 200.322 — and calls it "recovered materials," the pre-2020 title; recovered materials is now § 200.323 and § 200.322 is domestic preferences. Local governments and PNPs follow the full §§ 200.318–200.327, including full and open competition, and must apply the more restrictive rule where their own policy conflicts. PAPPG v5.0 Amended, Ch. 6, Sec. X.A–X.B, PDF pp. 96–98.
Current § 200.320 sorts procurement into three types: informal methods at or below the simplified acquisition threshold (micro-purchase, simplified acquisition), formal methods above it (sealed bids, proposals), and noncompetitive procurement. PAPPG's printed text still lists the older five-method framing and a $250,000 threshold, noting it is periodically adjusted; the FAR amounts § 200.1 defers to are $15,000 and $350,000 effective October 1, 2025. Point to your solicitation clause and PAPPAIA sets both side by side. PAPPG v5.0 Amended, Ch. 6, Sec. X.B, PDF pp. 99–100.
Noncompetitive procurement is permitted only in the circumstances at 2 C.F.R. § 200.320(c) — five under current law; PAPPG's printed text cites the pre-2020 § 200.320(f) and lists four. The exception runs only for work related to the circumstance and only while it exists. On award you must immediately begin competitively procuring similar goods and services, and failure to plan that transition cannot justify continued sole-sourcing. PAPPG v5.0 Amended, Ch. 6, Sec. X.C, PDF pp. 100–101.
Cost-plus-percentage-of-cost and percentage-of-construction contracts are prohibited for local governments and PNPs (2 C.F.R. § 200.324(c)); FEMA identifies that billing by four markers. Time-and-materials is allowed only if all three conditions in 2 C.F.R. § 200.318(j) are met — no other contract type suitable, a ceiling price the contractor exceeds at its own risk, and a high degree of oversight. States, territories, and Tribal Nations are not federally barred from either — but FEMA warns that no-ceiling T&M and CPPC contracts carry a high risk of noncompliance with the cost-reasonableness requirement, and FEMA and the DHS OIG scrutinize them. PAPPG v5.0 Amended, Ch. 6, Secs. X.A and X.D, PDF pp. 97 and 102.
For large projects with noncompetitive costs the PAPPG lists the required justification elements: description and expected amount, why noncompetitive procurement was necessary, how long the contract will be used and the impact if unavailable, the specific steps taken to establish full and open competition could not be used, and known conflicts of interest. Table 15 sets the contract-cost records required by project size. PAPPG v5.0 Amended, Ch. 6, Secs. X.C and X.E, PDF pp. 101 and 104.
Two problems. The exigency exception covers only work related to the circumstance, and only while it exists — on award you must immediately begin competitively procuring similar services and transition when circumstances end. Failure to plan that transition cannot justify continued sole-sourcing, so a 12-month term needs justification for its full length. Separately, as a local government your T&M contract is allowed only if no other contract type was suitable, it carries a ceiling price the contractor exceeds at its own risk, and you maintain a high degree of oversight. No ceiling fails that test.
Sources
This answers targeted questions about passages you point it to. It retrieves the most relevant parts of your file, not all of it — so it cannot tell you what a contract is missing, and it is not a compliance audit.
Free while PAPPAIA is in public preview. Answers are grounded in cited policy sources and include exact references for independent verification. General information, not legal or grant-compliance advice.
Ask this question