1 | P a g e

Posted: November 2016

Purpose and Scope

This Office of Justice Programs “toolkit” provides guidance designed to help recipients of OJP 

grants and cooperative agreements (as well as prospective applicants for such OJP awards) 

understand– 

 Which (if any) of the recipient’s proposed actions OJP will consider “subawards” for 

purposes of federal grants administrative requirements

 Which (if any) of the recipient’s proposed actions OJP will consider “procurement 

contracts under an OJP award” for purposes of those federal requirements

 Common federal administrative requirements that apply to all (or virtually all) 

subawards of OJP awards

 Common federal administrative requirements that apply to all (or virtually all) 

procurement contracts under OJP awards

 OJP resources on related topics.

This toolkit discusses how OJP will categorize an agreement by an OJP award recipient with an 

outside entity (or other third party) for purposes of the federal grants administrative 

requirements. (The rules discussed here do not determine how an agreement under an OJP 

award should be treated for purposes of State law requirements, or for other non-federal 

purposes.) 

Subawards under OJP Awards and Procurement Contracts 

under Awards: A Toolkit for OJP Recipients

Pursuant to the (DOJ) Part 200 Uniform Requirements, including the awarding-agency 

authority described in 2 C.F.R. 200.330, all OJP recipients, as well as all subrecipients of an 

OJP award at any tier, are to follow this guidance. (The Part 200 Uniform Requirements are 

the requirements set out at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, as adopted and modified by the Department of 

Justice at 2 C.F.R. Part 2800.) 

Other federal grant-making agencies may choose not to provide guidance, may provide 

somewhat different guidance, or may use award conditions regarding subawards and 

procurement contracts that differ from those used by OJP. The OJP conditions included in 

the award document and this OJP guidance govern OJP awards. 
2 | P a g e

OJP expects to update and expand this toolkit in the coming months. Please refer back to this 

webpage on a regular basis. 

Important Notes on Scope

 This toolkit focuses on OJP awards made during or after January 2015 (and that are 

directly affected by the Part 200 Uniform Requirements). The underlying principles, 

however, apply to all OJP awards, including those made before January 2015. That is, 

the basic principles that determine whether an agreement is a “subaward,” or instead is a 

“procurement contract under an award,” have changed little over the years.

 Although this toolkit focuses on agreements being entered into by recipients of OJP 

awards, the same underlying principles apply to agreements that subrecipients of OJP 

awards may enter into under a subaward. For purposes of federal grants administrative 

requirements, essentially the same principles apply regarding what constitutes a (secondtier or other lower-tier) “subaward” and what instead is a “procurement contract under a 

subaward.” 

 This guidance does not encompass certain less-common types of agreements that a 

recipient may enter into (or payments it may make) under an OJP award. For example, it 

does not cover– 

o Incentives provided directly to individuals who are the subjects of research

o Payments made directly to individual members of the public (not recipient 

employees) for costs they incur to attend trainings (or similar events) that are 

made available by recipients or subrecipients under an OJP award

o Compensation payments made directly to individuals who are victims of crime.

Contents

 Purpose and scope

 Some important terms

 Why a toolkit? Federal requirements for “subawards” and for “procurement contracts 

under awards” differ dramatically

 What makes an agreement a “subaward”?

 What makes an agreement a “procurement contract under an OJP award”?

 How do formula programs and awards to State administering agencies (SAAs) fit in?

 Some practical pointers

 Common administrative requirements: Subawards under OJP awards

 Common administrative requirements: Procurement contracts under OJP awards

 Related Resources

 Appendix: Some examples of subawards authorized by statute
3 | P a g e

Some important terms

As used in this OJP toolkit:

“Recipient” means a legal entity that receives a grant or cooperative agreement directly from 

OJP. The name of the recipient appears in Box 1 of the award document, and under “Legal 

Name” in Box 5 of the Standard Form 424 submitted in connection with the application to OJP. 

(An “organizational unit” of a recipient also may be listed in Box 5 of the SF-424, but the 

recipient is the entity listed in Box 1 of the award document, not any “organizational unit” 

identified in the SF 424.) 

“Subrecipient” means a legal entity that receives a “subaward” from a “recipient,” or a legal 

entity that receives a “subaward” from a “subrecipient.” When OJP refers here (or in award 

conditions) to a subrecipient “at any tier,” it refers to all subrecipients, not just subrecipients that 

receive a subaward directly from the recipient.

“Contractor” means a legal entity that enters into a “procurement contract under an award” 

with a “recipient,” or with a “subrecipient.” 

“Subcontractor” means a legal entity that enters into a subcontract with a “contractor.” In 

general, federal grants administrative rules and requirements do not deal with subcontracts or 

subcontractors in any way. The relationship between a contractor under an OJP award and 

subcontractor typically is governed by other rules and requirements, not by federal grants 

administrative requirements.

Why a toolkit? Federal requirements for “subawards” and for 

“procurement contracts under awards” differ dramatically

If a recipient enters into an agreement that is a “subaward” of an OJP award, specific rules apply

– many of which are set by federal statutes and DOJ regulations; others by award conditions. 

These rules place particular responsibilities on an OJP recipient for any subawards the OJP 

recipient may make. The rules determine much of what the written subaward agreement itself 

must require or provide. And, what is just as important, the rules determine much of what an 

OJP recipient must do both before and after it makes a subaward. 

If a recipient enters into an agreement that is a “procurement contract under an OJP award” 

(rather than a “subaward”), a dramatically different set of federal rules applies.

A “subaward” is not the same as a “procurement contract under an 

award.” Different rules apply to each. And the differences are significant.
4 | P a g e

Later sections of this OJP toolkit will identify various federal grants administrative requirements 

that commonly apply to “subawards,” as well as those that apply to “procurement contracts 

under an OJP award.” The chart below provides just a few examples.

Examples of Federal Grants Administrative Requirements

Subaward under an OJP Award Procurement Contract under an Award

A recipient must have specific federal 

authorization to enter into a subaward, which 

may take several forms.

A recipient must require a subrecipient to 

comply with – and must monitor a subrecipient 

for compliance with – many or all of the 

conditions and restrictions that apply to the OJP 

award to the recipient. 

A subrecipient typically must comply (and be 

required to comply) with the requirements that 

apply to recipients under the Part 200 Uniform 

Requirements. 

A recipient must, among other things, require a 

subrecipient to– 

o Provide appropriate progress reports 

and financial reports to the recipient

o Be accountable to the recipient for how 

it uses the federal funds provided under 

the subaward 

o Follow applicable federal rules 

regarding financial management, 

internal controls, cost principles, and 

audit requirements 

o Collect and provide performance data 

for the recipient to include in its reports 

to OJP.

As with recipients, a subrecipient may not earn 

a profit. 

A recipient typically may enter into a 

procurement contract for items listed in the OJPcleared budget without additional post-award 

approval. 

OJP requires specific post-award approval to use 

a non-competitive approach in any procurement 

contract that would exceed $150,000.

A recipient must comply with the Procurement 

Standards of the Part 200 Uniform 

Requirements, and also with the recipient’s own 

written procurement policies and procedures, to 

the extent they are consistent with the 

Procurement Standards and other applicable 

federal law.

The recipient must provide for full and open 

competition to the extent required by the 

Procurement Standards and OJP award 

conditions. 

A procurement contract must include all 

applicable contract provisions set out in 

Appendix II of 2 C.F.R. Part 200. 

Federal grants administrative requirements do 

not require a procurement “contractor” to report 

to the recipient how the contractor spent the 

funds it was paid under the procurement 

contract.

It typically is not necessary (or appropriate) for 

a procurement contractor to provide data on its 

work to the recipient for inclusion in the 

recipient’s reports on the OJP performance 

measures for the award.

A procurement “contractor” under an OJP award 

may earn a profit. 
5 | P a g e

It is vital that each OJP recipient understand which (if any) of its actions 

are “subawards” (for purposes of OJP and other federal grants 

administrative requirements), and which are instead “procurement 

contracts under an award.”

What makes an agreement a “subaward”?

For purposes of federal grants administrative requirements, the fundamental principle that 

distinguishes “subawards” from “procurement contracts under OJP awards” is this: 

If an OJP recipient agrees to provide award funds to outside entity (or another third party), so 

that the outside entity will carry out part of the OJP award or program, OJP will consider the 

agreement between the recipient and the outside entity a “subaward.” If, instead, an OJP 

recipient agrees to provide funds to an outside entity, and, in exchange, the outside entity will 

simply provide the recipient with goods or services ancillary to the award, rather than “carry 

out part of the OJP award,” OJP will consider the agreement a “procurement contract (or 

procurement transaction) under the OJP award,” not a “subaward.”

The critical question, then, is whether the outside entity is “carry[ing] out part of the OJP 

award or program.” The answer lies in the relationship between– (1) what the outside entity 

will do under its agreement with the recipient, and (2) what the recipient has committed (to OJP) 

to do to further the public purpose(s) of the OJP award.

OJP grants and cooperative agreements are intended to further various public purposes. Through 

its solicitations, OJP invites applicants to propose to undertake work to further one or more of 

these public purposes. In its application, among other things, the applicant describes how it will 

further the public purpose(s) of the OJP program or solicitation, its plan and capabilities/ 

competencies to carry out the work, and the associated costs.

Some common types of public purposes of OJP awards

Through grants or cooperative agreements– 

 To encourage and support States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to provide 

certain services or types of services (or products) related to crime or criminal justice 

(including victimization, crime prevention, delinquency prevention, and juvenile 

justice) to the public they serve

 To provide crime- or criminal-justice-related services (and, in the case of crime victims, 

compensation) to individual members of the public, such as victims of crime, or at-risk 

youth
6 | P a g e

 To develop (or adapt or otherwise improve) training and technical assistance materials to 

meet the needs of entities or individuals working to address crime, improve criminal 

justice, or assist victims of crime

 To provide training or technical assistance to entities or individuals working to address 

crime, improve criminal justice, or assist victims of crime

 To develop (or develop improvements to) technology useful in addressing crime, 

improving criminal justice, or assisting victims of crime

 To collect and analyze data, or conduct research and evaluation, on issues related to 

crime, criminal justice, and victimization.

Because of the nature of OJP’s awards and the public purposes of its programs, it is often quite 

clear whether (for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements) a particular agreement 

is a “subaward,” or whether it instead is a “procurement contract under an OJP award.” 

Some examples of “subawards”

 If OJP funds a recipient to provide various types of services to a particular population, 

and the recipient proposes to pay an outside entity (or other third party) to provide one or 

more of those services (or to provide one or more of those services to one segment of the 

population the award is intended to assist), the outside entity would be “carrying out part 

of the award,” and OJP will consider an agreement between the recipient and the outside 

entity to be a subaward.

o For example, if a recipient that receives OJP funds to provide a suite of services 

(including legal services) to victims of crime enters into an agreement to pay 

award funds to another entity to provide legal services to victims as contemplated 

by the award, OJP will consider the agreement a subaward. 

 Tip: If a recipient proposes to enter into an agreement with an outside entity to 

provide particular services to members of the public (e.g., victims of crime) who 

are the intended “beneficiaries” of the OJP award, and the responsibilities of the 

outside entity will include determining whether a specific individual is eligible to 

receive those services, it is especially clear that the agreement must be 

characterized as a subaward. 

 If OJP funds a recipient to develop (or improve) a particular product or a set of products, 

and the recipient proposes to enter into an agreement to pay an outside entity (or other 

third party) to develop or improve one of the products (or to develop or improve a part of 

one of the products), the outside entity would be “carrying out part of the award,” and 

OJP will consider the agreement with the outside entity to be a subaward. 
7 | P a g e

o The “product” in this example could be a new technology, or a modification of an 

existing technology to make it more useful in addressing crime, improving 

criminal justice, or assisting victims of crime.

o The “product” also could be a set of training materials, a curriculum, a resource 

guide, or a guide to “best practices” or “promising programs.”

 Tip: In general, if an outside entity will use its own judgement, discretion, and 

expertise to develop all or part of a product that the recipient has agreed to 

develop as a public purpose of the award, the agreement is likely to be a 

subaward. 

 If OJP funds a recipient to conduct research and analysis on an issue in criminal justice, 

and the recipient proposes to enter into an agreement to pay an outside entity (or other 

third party) to conduct part of the research or analysis, the outside entity would be 

“carrying out part of the award,” and OJP will consider the agreement with the research 

entity to be a subaward. 

 If OJP funds a recipient to implement and evaluate a potentially-promising new approach 

to crime prevention, and the recipient’s application indicates (or the OJP solicitation 

requires) that the evaluation will be conducted by an independent research entity, when 

the independent research entity conducts the evaluation pursuant to an agreement with the 

recipient, the research entity would be “carrying out part of the award,” and OJP will 

consider the agreement with the research entity to be a subaward. 

Tip: In any OJP award in which the recipient entity proposes to “collaborate” (or 

“partner”) with another entity to accomplish its work (particularly when the OJP 

solicitation requires or encourages such a collaboration), an agreement by the 

recipient to pay the collaborator is very likely to be a “subaward” for purposes of 

federal grants administrative requirements, rather than a “procurement contract 

under the OJP award.”

Consider the relationship between (1) what the outside entity will do under 

its agreement with the recipient, and (2) what the recipient has committed 

(to OJP) to do to further the public purpose of the OJP award.
8 | P a g e

What makes an agreement a “procurement contract under an OJP 

award”?

With regard to a proposed “procurement contract under an OJP award,” the central question 

remains the same: What is the relationship between– (1) what the outside entity or other third 

party will do under its agreement with the recipient, and (2) what the recipient has committed (to 

OJP) to do to further the public purpose(s) of the OJP award.

If the OJP recipient proposes to enter into an agreement to pay award funds to an outside entity, 

and the outside entity will not be carrying out all or part of a public purpose of the award as 

described and discussed above, but instead will only be providing “ancillary” goods or services 

the recipient needs (frequently, to perform the recipient’s own work under the award), OJP will 

consider the agreement to be a “procurement contract under an award.” 

 Tip: If an OJP recipient is purchasing or leasing an item from an outside entity that 

makes the identical (or virtually identical) item widely available to others (e.g., to the 

mass market), absent unusual circumstances, OJP will consider the purchase or lease of 

the item by the recipient to be a “procurement contract under an award.”

Some examples of items that frequently may fall into this category:

o Office equipment for use by recipient employees (e.g., laptops, printers/copiers)

o Office supplies for use by recipient employees (e.g., paper, toner) 

o Software licenses for widely-available programs such as Microsoft Office or 

Adobe Acrobat

o Sports equipment for use in a youth program funded by the OJP award

o Reference books 

o Purchase of a license needed to include particular copyrighted material in training 

materials to be produced and distributed in connection with an OJP award

o Chemical reagents for use by recipient employees (e.g., in a recipient’s forensic 

laboratory or in a recipient’s research facility)

o Cell phones for use by recipient employees

o Body-worn cameras for law enforcement officers employed by the recipient

o Body armor (ballistic-resistant or stab-resistant) for law enforcement officers 

employed by the recipient

 Tip: If the recipient is obtaining services from an outside entity that makes identical 

services widely available to others (e.g., to the mass market) – that is, services that are 

not designed, modified, or adapted to meet particular needs of the recipient – absent 

unusual circumstances, OJP will consider the agreement to obtain the services to be a 

“procurement contract under an award.”

Some examples of services that frequently may fall into this category:

o Internet service for recipient employees

o Cell phone service for recipient employees
9 | P a g e

o Maintenance and “customer support” help-desk services contract for (off-theshelf) laptop or desktop computers used by recipient employees

o Basic website hosting services (not including website design and development) 

o Printing or mailing services

o Copying services (e.g., for training materials)

o Lodging at a hotel (e.g., for non-employee participants in a training that is being 

provided as part of an OJP award)

Neither the label a recipient gives an agreement nor the way the recipient 

categorizes the agreement for its own internal (or other non-federal) 

purposes determines whether – for purposes of federal grants administrative 

requirements – an agreement is a “subaward” or is instead a “procurement 

contract under an award.”

How do Formula Programs and Awards to State Administering 

Agencies (SAAs) Fit In?

At first glance, OJP “formula” grant programs and programs that make funds available to SAAs 

for subawards to other entities (e.g., units of local government) may seem to be something of a 

special case. In addition to one or more of the common “public purposes” of OJP awards listed 

earlier, such programs may have an additional “public purpose,” namely, supporting States, units 

of local government, and/or Indian tribes in obtaining products or services they themselves need 

in relation to their own functions and responsibilities with respect to crime or criminal justice.

But even if one of the public purposes of an OJP formula award is to support States, units of 

local government, and/or Indian tribes in obtaining products or services they may need, the same 

basic principles apply. 

 If a recipient of such an award proposes – or is required by law or by award conditions – 

to enter into an agreement with another governmental entity to assist or enable the other 

governmental entity to obtain products or services the other governmental entity may 

need (or that it may wish to provide) in relation to crime or criminal justice, the 

agreement is “carrying out part of the public purpose” of the award, and OJP will 

consider the agreement to be a “subaward.”

o Agreements between designated SAAs and units of local government under OJP 

“formula” programs often will fall into this category. (See the Appendix to this 

OJP toolkit for some examples of OJP “formula” programs and associated 

agreements that are considered “subawards authorized by statute.”)
10 | P a g e

 If a recipient of such an award proposes to enter into an agreement to pay an outside 

entity to provide the recipient itself with products or services that are identical or virtually 

identical to those available on the mass market (as described in the preceding section of 

this OJP toolkit), OJP will consider the agreement to be a “procurement contract under an 

award.”

o One example of this would be an agreement between a recipient of an award 

under the DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Program and a 

private, for-profit DNA laboratory, under which the private laboratory will 

conduct DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes.

 If a recipient of such an award proposes to enter into an agreement with an outside entity 

to provide crime- or criminal-justice-related services (such as crime victim assistance 

services) to members of the public it serves (or some segment of that public), the 

agreement would be “carrying out part of the public purpose” of the award, and OJP 

typically will consider the agreement to be a “subaward.”

Some examples of OJP “formula” programs in which a public purpose of the award is to 

assist States, units of local government, and/or Indian tribes in obtaining products or services 

they may need (or that they may wish to provide to the public they serve) in relation to crime 

or criminal justice include– 

 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (administered by OJP’s 

Bureau of Justice Assistance)

 OJJDP Title II (“Part B”) Formula Grants Program (administered by OJP’s Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) 

 VOCA Victim Assistance Formula Program (administered by OJP’s Office forVictims 

of Crime)

 DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Program (administered by OJP’s 

National Institute of Justice)

 Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grants Program (administered by OJP’s 

National Institute of Justice).

Some practical pointers

 Neither the label a recipient gives an agreement, nor the manner in which the recipient 

categorizes the agreement for its own internal or other non-federal purposes, determines 

whether the agreement – for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements – is 

a “subaward” or is instead a “procurement contract under an award.”
11 | P a g e

 For the most part, one cannot determine whether a particular action or agreement is a 

“subaward,” or is instead a “procurement contract under an award,” without examining 

the relationship between the action or agreement and the public purpose(s) of the 

particular OJP award.

 Financial clearance by OJP of a recipient’s budget for an award does not determine 

whether – for purposes of federal grants administrative requirements – OJP will 

consider an item listed in the budget a “subaward,” or instead consider it a 

“procurement contract under an award.” This is true even if the budget labels or lists a 

proposed action or agreement as a subaward, or instead lists it as a procurement 

contract.

 The fact that a cost typically is allowable under applicable cost principles does not 

determine whether an agreement with an outside entity to provide an item or service 

would be a “subaward,” or whether it instead would be a “procurement contract under 

the award.” All costs charged to an OJP award must be “allowable.”

 The fact that a good or service is “commercially available” does not itself determine 

whether an agreement to pay an outside entity for that good or service will be 

considered a “procurement contract under an award.” 

 The fact that a recipient may be proposing to enter into an agreement for goods or 

services with an individual (other than an employee of the recipient) does not affect 

whether the agreement will be considered a “subaward” or instead be considered a 

“procurement contract under the award.” 

o The federal administrative requirements that apply to an agreement for goods or 

services that a recipient enters into with an individual in his or her personal 

capacity (that is, independent of any organization or business with which the 

individual is associated) vary somewhat from the requirements that apply to an 

agreement a recipient may enter into with a public or private entity. The same 

basic concepts and principles, however, apply with respect to whether an 

agreement is a “subaward,” or instead is a “procurement contact under an OJP 

award.”

 Tip: Absent unusual circumstances, for purposes of applicable federal grants 

administrative requirements, OJP will consider a “consultant” to be either a 

“subrecipient” or a procurement “contractor,” and will apply the general 

principles set out in this OJP toolkit. “Consultant” is not an independent third 

category.
12 | P a g e

Common Administrative Requirements: Subawards under OJP 

Awards

For additional details, refer to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements (in particular, the 

requirements set out in 2 C.F.R. 200.331, and the acronyms and definitions that appear in 

Subpart A of 2 C.F.R. Part 200). 

 A recipient may not enter into a “subaward” without federal authorization (which may 

take one of several forms).

o Unless an applicable statute or DOJ regulation specifically authorizes or requires 

subawards, OJP must authorize a recipient to enter into a subaward. 

o As discussed in the Award Condition: All subawards ("subgrants") must have

specific federal authorization (incorporated by reference in many OJP awards 

made in FY 2016), the authorization may take various forms.

 A recipient typically may not make a subaward to any entity that does not acquire and 

provide (to the recipient) the unique entity identifier required for registration in the 

federal System for Award Management.

o See the Award condition: System for Award Management (SAM) and Universal

Identifier Requirements (incorporated by reference into OJP awards).

 A recipient typically must report first-tier subawards of $25,000 or more to the FFATA 

Subaward Reporting System, and otherwise comply with the Award Condition:

Reporting Subawards and Executive Compensation. 

 A recipient must assess each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with award conditions 

and applicable federal law, and must take its assessment into account in its monitoring of 

the subrecipient. 

 A recipient must require each subrecipient to provide the progress and financial reports 

and performance data necessary for the recipient to make complete reports to OJP on 

progress under the award and on data pertinent to the OJP performance measures.

 A recipient must require – through a written subaward agreement and through monitoring 

– that a subrecipient comply with all applicable requirements of the Part 200 Uniform 

Requirements.

o Absent unusual circumstances, any recipient that makes a subaward must pass 

through these requirements.

o These requirements include, among other things, requirements regarding financial 

management, internal controls, cost principles, allowable costs, indirect costs, and 

records retention and access.
13 | P a g e

o Subrecipients, like recipients, are subject to the audit requirements set out in the 

Part 200 Uniform Requirements (at Subpart F of 2 C.F.R. Part 200), or to related 

requirements set out in award conditions. 

o A subrecipient that itself makes (lower-tier) subawards must be required to 

comply with the provisions of Part 200 Uniform Requirements concerning 

Subrecipient Monitoring and Management. Similarly, a subrecipient that itself 

enters into procurement contracts under the subaward must be required to comply 

with the Procurement Standards set out in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements. 

 A recipient must require a subrecipient – through the written agreement and through 

monitoring – to comply with all applicable conditions and restrictions included in the 

OJP award, including all “pass-through” requirements.

Some examples– 

o General appropriations-law restrictions on use of federal funds. See, e.g., Award

Condition: General appropriations-law restrictions on use of federal award funds

(FY 2016)

o Requirements (including requirements to report allegations) pertaining to 

prohibited conduct related to the trafficking of persons. See Award condition:

Prohibited conduct by recipients and subrecipients related to trafficking in

persons.

o Restrictions on “lobbying” 

o Restrictions on nondisclosure agreements

o Compliance with 28 C.F.R. Part 38 (pertaining to civil rights and 

nondiscrimination) 

o Compliance with 28 C.F.R. Part 42 (pertaining to civil rights and 

nondiscrimination) 

o Compliance with applicable laws and official Department of Justice guidance 

governing the use of federal funds for expenses related to conferences (as that 

term is defined by the DOJ)

o Reporting of potential fraud, waste, and abuse, and similar misconduct to the DOJ 

Office of the Inspector General

 A recipient must monitor a subrecipient, including for compliance with award conditions 

and applicable requirements of the Part 200 Uniform Requirements.
14 | P a g e

Common Administrative Requirements: Procurement Contracts 

under OJP Awards

For additional details, refer to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements (in particular, the 

Procurement Standards set out in Subpart D of 2 C.F.R. Part 200, and the acronyms and 

definitions that appear in Subpart A of 2 C.F.R. Part 200). 

In connection with any “procurement contract under an OJP award”– 

 A recipient must comply with the Procurement Standards, and also with the recipient’s 

own written procurement policies and procedures, to the extent they are consistent with 

the Procurement Standards and other applicable federal law.

o For important background information, see the OJP Quick Guide: Procurement 

Standards and the Part 200 Uniform Requirements. (forthcoming)

o For detailed guidance, refer to the Guide to Procurement under DOJ Grants and

Cooperative Agreements (July 2016) (issued by the OJP Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer).

 A recipient must provide for full and open competition in procurements to the extent 

required by the Procurement Standards and OJP award conditions. 

o The Procurement Standards include specific rules for “micropurchases” and 

“small purchases.” 

o The Procurement Standards incorporate certain priorities for small businesses, 

and woman- or minority-owned businesses.

o No employee, officer, or agent of an OJP recipient who has a real or apparent 

conflict of interest may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a 

procurement contract under an OJP award.

o By OJP award condition, if a proposed procurement contract would exceed the 

simplified acquisition threshold – currently, $150,000 – and the recipient wishes 

to proceed without competition, the recipient must request specific advance 

authorization from OJP to use a non-competitive approach for the 

procurement. (Refer to the Award Condition: Specific post-award approval

required to use a noncompetitive approach in a procurement contract (if contract

would exceed $150,000), applicable to most FY 2016 awards.)

 A recipient must document the history of each procurement under an OJP award, 

including the rationale for each of the following– (1) method of procurement, (2) 

selection of contract type, (2) contractor selection or rejection, and (4) basis for contract 

price.

 A recipient must perform (and document) a cost or price analysis before awarding or 

modifying any procurement contract that would exceed the simplified acquisition
15 | P a g e

threshold (currently, $150,000). The required cost or price analysis must incorporate 

independent estimates developed prior to the receipt of bids or proposals. 

 In its procurement contracts, a recipient must include all applicable contract provisions 

set out in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements in Appendix II of 2 C.F.R. Part 200. 

Related Resources

 Pertinent resources available through OJP’s Part 200 Uniform Requirements webpage 

include – 

OJP Introduction to the Part 200 Uniform Requirements: The Impact of 2 C.F.R. 

Part 200 (the “Supercircular”) on OJP Grants and Cooperative Agreements

OJP Selected Highlights of the Part 200 Uniform Requirements 

The Part 200 Uniform Requirements – Answers to Frequently-Asked Questions 

(OJP)

OJP Quick Guide: Indirect cost rates and the Part 200 Uniform Requirements

OJP Quick Guide: Procurement standards and the Part 200 Uniform 

Requirements (forthcoming) 

OJP Quick Guide: Audit requirements for OJP Awards under the Part 200 

Uniform Requirements

 Award Condition: All subawards ("subgrants") must have specific federal authorization

(incorporated by reference in many OJP awards made in FY 2016) 

 Award Condition: Specific post-award approval required to use a noncompetitive

approach in a procurement contract (if contract would exceed $150,000) (incorporated by 

reference in many OJP awards made in FY 2016) 

 Guide to Procurement under DOJ Grants and Cooperative Agreements (July 2016)

(issued by the OJP Office of the Chief Financial Officer)

Questions?

Questions regarding this OJP toolkit should be directed to OJP. In addition, an OJP recipient is 

to seek clarification from OJP if it is uncertain whether OJP would consider a particular 

agreement with an outside entity (or other third party) a “subaward,” or instead would consider it 

a “procurement contract under the award.”
16 | P a g e

APPENDIX

Some examples of “subawards authorized by statute” in OJP programs

OJP Program Proposed Action/Agreement OJP will consider the

Action/Agreement

Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant 

(“JAG”) Program

State provides funds to unit of 

local government, or to nonprofit 

neighborhood or nonprofit 

community-based organization, 

for the purposes described in 42 

U.S.C. 3751(a)

Subaward; authorized 

by statute

Unit of local government 

provides funds to nonprofit 

neighborhood or nonprofit 

community-based organization, 

for the purposes described in 42 

U.S.C. 3751(a)

Subaward; authorized 

by statute

State provides funds to unit of 

local government in compliance 

with “variable pass-through” 

requirements pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 3755(c)(2), for the 

purposes described in 42 U.S.C. 

3751(a)

Subaward; authorized 

by statute

State provides funds to a unit of 

local government that is a “less 

than $10,000 jurisdiction” 

pursuant to 42 USC 3755(e)(2), 

for the purposes described in 42 

U.S.C. 3751(a)

Subaward; authorized 

by statute

Unit of local government 

provides funds to a “disparate 

jurisdiction” pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 3755(d)(4), for the 

purposes described in 42 U.S.C. 

3751(a)

Subaward; authorized 

by statute
17 | P a g e

OJP Program (cont’d) Proposed Action/Agreement OJP will consider the

Action/Agreement

Paul Coverdell Forensic 

Sciences Improvement Grants 

Program

State provides funds to unit of 

local government to carry out part 

of a program intended to improve 

the quality and timeliness of 

forensic science or medical 

examiner services in the State, 

including such services provided 

by a laboratory operated by the 

unit of local government

Subaward; authorized 

by statute

JJDPA Title II (“Part B”) 

Formula Grants Program 

State provides funds to unit of 

local government, local 

organization, or eligible Indian 

tribe, for programs identified in 

the approved application/State 

plan submitted pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 5633(a)

Subaward; authorized 

by statute

Residential Substance Abuse 

Treatment (“RSAT”) for State 

Prisoners Program

State provides funds to unit of 

local government, for the 

purposes described in 42 U.S.C. 

3796ff

Subaward; authorized 

by statute

State provides funds to unit of 

local government in compliance 

with local allocation 

requirements, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 3796ff-3(c), for the 

purposes stated therein

Subaward; authorized 

by statute

VOCA Victim Assistance 

Formula Program

State provides funds to a public 

agency or nonprofit organization 

that is an “eligible crime victim 

assistance program” under 42

U.S.C. 10603(b), for services to 

victims of crime

Subaward; authorized 

by statute