Direct comparison
Sole Source vs. Single Source
Sole source vs. single source procurement, explained: the market-exclusivity vs. business-choice distinction, and how 2 CFR 200.320 and FAR treat each.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · free to try
Ask about Sole Source vs. Single Source
Ask your first 2 questions free below. Subscribers get 150 a day for $29 a month.
An AI assistant specialized in research administration. It cites the sources behind every answer, labels web answers and says when it can't answer.
Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.
Works on this site and inside Claude, Cursor and the AI tools you already use.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Sole Source, Single Source compare side by side?
The table below compares Sole Source, Single Source across 8 procurement-relevant dimensions, from what it means through everyday usage.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Sole Source | Single Source |
|---|---|---|
| What it means | Only one supplier exists in the market capable of providing the required good, service, or equipment — a factual, market-based determination, not a preference. | More than one supplier could technically provide the item, but the purchaser chooses to buy from just one, without soliciting competing offers. |
| Why competition is skipped | Competition is impossible — no second qualified source exists (patented equipment, sole manufacturer, unique proprietary expertise). | Competition is possible but not pursued — commonly for standardization with existing equipment, compatibility, warranty/service continuity, or an existing schedule agreement. |
| Regulatory basis (federal grants) | 2 CFR §200.320(c)(3): the item is "available only from a single source" — one of four permitted grounds for a noncompetitive proposal. | Not a separate 2 CFR 200 category — treated as the same noncompetitive-proposal method, so it must still satisfy one of §200.320(c)'s four allowable grounds to be an allowable cost. |
| Federal contracting (FAR) treatment | FAR Part 6 sole-source award requires a Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC/J&A) under FAR 6.302. | FAR does not define "single source" as a standalone term; the closest analog is a "limited sources" justification for Federal Supply Schedule orders (FAR 8.405-6), exempt from the full Part 6 JOFOC process. |
| Documentation burden | Typically higher — must show market research proving no other source exists (vendor survey, patent search, manufacturer confirmation). | Typically framed as programmatic/technical justification for why compatibility or standardization outweighs competing the purchase; a price-reasonableness determination is still required. |
| Common trigger in a lab/research setting | A proprietary reagent, instrument, or software licensed by only one manufacturer with no functional equivalent. | An add-on module, part, or consumable that must be compatible with existing capital equipment already on-site, from among several vendors who could otherwise compete. |
| Audit risk if misclassified | Calling something sole source when competitors actually exist is a common audit finding; reviewers expect documented market research supporting the claim. | Calling something single source without tying it to one of §200.320(c)'s allowable grounds risks the purchase being disallowed as an unallowable cost. |
| Everyday usage | Used loosely, and often interchangeably with "single source," in casual conversation and some institutional policies. | Same — institutional purchasing policies vary; some use "single source" as their formal term for the standardization/compatibility scenario specifically, others use it as a synonym for sole source. |
Common questions
Common questions about Sole Source vs Single Source
Are "sole source" and "single source" legally the same thing under federal grant rules?
+
For compliance purposes, largely yes — both are documented as a "noncompetitive proposal" under 2 CFR §200.320, the fifth allowed procurement method, and both must satisfy one of the same four allowable grounds in §200.320(c). The terms describe different reasons a purchase might qualify (market exclusivity vs. a standardization/compatibility decision), but neither creates a separate regulatory category from the other under the Uniform Guidance.
Does my institution need a different form for a single-source purchase than a sole-source purchase?
+
Not under federal Uniform Guidance — both route through the same noncompetitive-procurement justification and documentation requirement. Some institutional purchasing policies do distinguish the two administratively, for example a lighter-weight single-source form for standardization purchases below a dollar threshold versus a full sole-source justification above it. Check your own institution's procurement policy: 2 CFR 200 sets a compliance floor, and many universities and hospitals layer stricter internal rules on top.
Where can I find a template for writing the justification itself?
+
See CASRAI's guide to the sole-source justification letter for required elements and a worked example. This comparison page focuses on the distinction between the two terms; that guide covers the format of the document you would actually produce once you've determined which route applies.
What is a "sole source agreement"?
+
An informal term for the contract or purchase order that results once a sole-source (noncompetitive) procurement has been justified and approved. It is not a distinct legal instrument from an ordinary contract — only the procurement method that led to it skipped competition. The same contract-provisions requirements under 2 CFR §200.327 still apply regardless of how the source was selected.
Going deeper
