Non-competitive emergency contract

When a genuine emergency strikes—a natural disaster, critical infrastructure failure, or imminent threat to public safety—federal contracting authorities can bypass the usual competitive bidding process entirely. This isn't about convenience or speed for routine needs. It's a narrowly defined exception that lets you act fast when delay would genuinely harm the public interest.

How It Works

The authority for non-competitive emergency contracting comes from multiple sources: the Government Contracting Regulations (GCRs) Section 6, the Treasury Board Contracting Policy, and Canada's trade agreements including the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) Article 513(1)(d). According to Supply Manual Chapter 3.15, you can only use this approach when facing "a pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest." That means an actual or imminent life-threatening situation, a disaster endangering the quality of life or safety of Canadians, potential loss of life, or significant loss or damage to Crown property.

Here's the thing: unforeseeable urgency is the key qualifier. You need to document in your contract file why the situation couldn't have been anticipated and why normal procurement timelines—even advance contract award notices or expedited competitive processes—simply won't work. PSPC and other departments must justify why competition was genuinely not feasible, not just inconvenient. The CFTA and USMCA both permit non-competitive contracting "when it is strictly necessary, and for reasons of urgency brought about by events unforeseeable by the procuring entity," as the Treasury Board Secretariat makes clear in its guidance.

In practice, this means thorough file documentation. You'll reference the specific trade agreement provisions that apply—whether it's CFTA Article 513(1)(d) or USMCA equivalents—and explain the emergency circumstances, why you couldn't predict them, and why even shortened competitive timelines would cause injury to the public interest. Don't confuse this with low-dollar non-competitive contracting, which has different thresholds ($25,000 for goods, $100,000 for services) and entirely different justification requirements.

Key Considerations

• Emergency doesn't mean poor planning. If you could have foreseen the need or if your own lack of planning created the urgency, this exception doesn't apply. Contracting authorities scrutinize these files carefully, and the Office of the Procurement Ombud regularly reviews emergency procurement practices.

• Trade agreement compliance matters. Even in emergencies, you're bound by international obligations. Your documentation must explicitly reference which trade agreement provisions you're invoking, and the emergency must meet their definitions of unforeseeable urgency.

• The contract scope must match the emergency. You can't use emergency authority to lock in long-term arrangements. The contract should cover only what's needed to address the immediate pressing situation—temporary repairs, not permanent infrastructure replacements.

• Post-award transparency still applies. Emergency contracts still get reported and are subject to the same disclosure requirements as competitive contracts, just without the pre-award competition phase.

Related Terms

Limited Tendering, Sole Source Contract, Exception to Competition

Sources

• Supply Manual - Chapter 3.15 Non-competitive Contracting

• Emergency Procurement Guide (Office of the Procurement Ombud)

• Government Contracting Regulations

Bottom line: emergency non-competitive contracting is a legitimate tool when genuine urgency meets the legal test, but it requires meticulous documentation and can't be your fallback for inadequate procurement planning.