Federal contracts awarded under "urgency"

Contracts the government awarded in fiscal year 2026 without full and open competition citing "unusual and compelling urgency" (FAR 6.302-2). They come in two kinds, counted separately: urgency invoked on the award itself (mostly standalone sole-source contracts), and orders that inherited the urgency code from a parent contract vehicle set up citing urgency (almost all border-wall construction — competed or sole-sourced at the order level). The two totals are never added together (see "What is this & how it's counted" below). Click any row for detail; every award links to its USAspending page.

What is this & how it's counted

Agencies normally must compete contracts. One legal way to skip that is to claim "unusual and compelling urgency" — the standard being that the government would suffer serious injury, financial or otherwise, without it. On each award's USAspending page, the designation appears under Additional Details → Competition Details as "Other than Full and Open Competition: Urgency." That's the reason code, not the written justification.

These are all FAR 6.302-2 awards, and they come in a few flavors — shown in the Type column: definitive contracts (a new standalone contract), delivery orders (an order placed against an existing contract vehicle), and purchase orders (small simplified buys). A written Justification & Approval (J&A) gets posted to SAM.gov mainly for the standalone contracts; for a delivery order the justification usually lives at the parent vehicle, and purchase orders fall below the threshold — so most awards here have no posted J&A, and the 📄 Justification badge marks the ones that do (an amber 📄 Parent J&A means the justification we found is the parent vehicle's, not the order's).

Two kinds of urgency award — counted separately, never summed. The wrinkle is that a task or delivery order inherits its competition code from the parent contract vehicle it's placed against, so the same "URGENCY" code can mean two different things:

  • Urgency on the award (~$3.8B): urgency is the basis on this award itself — a standalone sole-source contract, or an order whose own "fair opportunity" basis (FAR 16.505) is urgency. Competition was skipped here, for urgency.
  • Urgency on the vehicle (~$23B, almost all border-wall construction): the award only inherited the urgency code from a parent vehicle that was set up citing urgency. At the order level it was either competed among the vehicle's contractors ("fair opportunity given") or sole-sourced on another basis ("only one source"). The urgency justification lives one level up, at the vehicle — not on this order.

Filtering on the urgency code alone lumps both together (~$27B); splitting them keeps the "competition was actually skipped here" number ($3.8B) honest while still showing the much larger flow of contracting that runs through urgency-justified vehicles. Use the Urgency basis filter to see either kind on its own.

No filters applied
RecipientAgencyObligatedDateTypeDescriptionLink amt_magency_topcategorydisputejustificationBasis