Unveiling the Distinctions: A Descriptive and Comparative Study of Other Transaction Authority Agreements and Federal Acquisition Regulation Based Contracts in Government Acquisitions

Abstract

The utilization of Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements has been expanding within defense agencies, but there remains limited empirical evidence regarding their comparative risks, benefits, and outcomes versus traditional Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)–based contracts. Through a mixed methods approach, we systematically compared six matched sets of Air Force FAR and OTA contracts from 2010–2020 to evaluate their structural distinctions. Quantitative analysis of contract attributes and qualitative examination of language revealed OTA agreements prioritize tailored flexibility, whereas FAR contracts emphasize procedural rigor. Our findings show OTAs achieve latitude through less standardized terminology and oversight processes but incorporate similar core content as FAR vehicles. While both models adhere to basic legal tenets, OTAs accommodated more diverse research, prototypes, and experimental initiatives. To optimize utilization, we recommend mandating OTA business case justifications, tracking metrics on innovations unlocked, expanding stakeholder education, and implementing regular audits. By unveiling the balance between programmatic adaptability and contractual discipline, this study offers data-driven guidance regarding when OTAs provide value over FAR agreements for defense acquisitions.