ATLA's sole-source contracts — reading the real published justifications
A read-through of the actual justification text ATLA (the Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency) publishes every month in its central-procurement contract disclosure, organized by which legal provision each contract cites for skipping competitive bidding. Every example is a direct quotation or faithful translation of published data — no analysis or advice added.
Verified against official sources: 2026-09-21
This guide quotes and organizes official sources. It is not advice.
This guide quotes and organizes primary material that a government or official body already publishes, translating it only where the source is in Japanese. It contains no views or advice of Hashike's own. Check how it applies to a specific opportunity against that solicitation and the responsible agency's own information.
The legal framework: Article 29-3 of the Accounting Act (会計法)
Article 29-3, paragraph 1 of the Accounting Act (会計法) states the general rule: contracting officers concluding a contract of sale, lease, work, or other type "must put it out to open competitive bidding by public notice," except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.
Two different exceptions to competitive bidding sit in this one article, for two different reasons. Keeping them apart is the key to reading the examples below correctly.
Paragraph 4 (sole-source by "nature or purpose"): "When the nature or purpose of the contract does not permit competition, when urgent necessity makes competitive bidding impossible, or when competitive bidding is found disadvantageous, the contract is to be a negotiated (sole-source) contract, as prescribed by cabinet order."
Source: e-Gov 法令検索 — 会計法第二十九条の三第四項 ↗
Paragraph 5 (small-value sole-source): "When the estimated price of the contract is small, or in other cases prescribed by cabinet order, a designated-competitive or negotiated contract may be used instead, as prescribed by cabinet order."
Source: e-Gov 法令検索 — 会計法第二十九条の三第五項 ↗
So the single English gloss "sole-source" can mean two very different things in this data. Paragraph 4 says "only this company can perform it"; paragraph 5 says "the amount is small enough that formal competition isn't required," independent of whether other companies could have done the work. In the ATLA data Hashike has ingested (FY2024-2026), citations to paragraph 4 alone are the single most common reason given, with paragraph 5 ("第29条の3第5項、予決令第99条の2") second. The three patterns below are all paragraph-4 (nature-of-contract) examples — the small-value paragraph-5 contracts are common in the data but, being about amount rather than capability, do not carry the kind of explanatory text worth quoting here.
Pattern 1: business-succession designations under the Defense Production Base Reinforcement Act
Under the 2023 Defense Production Base Reinforcement Act, a company whose "stable manufacturing security plan" for a specific piece of equipment has been individually certified by the Minister of Defense becomes, by statute, the sole legally designated contract counterparty for that equipment. ATLA publishes these monthly as "specific-initiative contracts" (特定取組契約). Real examples, quoted/summarized from the published data:
Every specific-initiative contract's published justification uses nearly the same template: "The only business operator able to perform this contract is [company], which has received Ministerial certification of a stable-manufacturing-security plan under the Defense Production Base Reinforcement Act; by operation of law, the contract counterparty is fixed as a single party. (Legal basis: Accounting Act Article 29-3, Paragraph 4.)"
- Sanyo Seiki Co., Ltd. (Kaga, Ishikawa) — a "business-succession" specific initiative, ¥279,080,562 (March 2025)
- Netsuren Hi-mecc Co., Ltd. (Shinagawa, Tokyo) — same category, ¥104,299,701 (October 2024)
- Chukin Co., Ltd. (Kumiyama, Kyoto) — same category, ¥101,538,800 (March 2024)
- Space Service Inc. (Chiyoda, Tokyo) — a "cybersecurity strengthening" specific initiative, ¥7,340,080 (January 2025)
Pattern 2: an industry capability survey confirms only one company holds the required technology or license
For large equipment programs, ATLA frequently documents an "industry-capability survey" (業態調査) confirming no other qualified supplier exists, alongside a standing public notice inviting new entrants that drew no response, before concluding a sole-source contract. Many of these turn on holding a license under the Weapons Manufacturing Act (武器等製造法) and/or the Explosives Control Act (火薬類取締法). Real examples, quoted from the published data:
Examples, largest contract amount first:
- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. — "Hypersonic guided-missile production preparation services (Part 2)," ¥239,038,800,000 (April 2025). Reason, as published: "...at the time of the industry-capability survey, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries was the only company able to establish the above technology and implementation structure. A public solicitation also drew only Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as a respondent."
- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. — "Construction of Aegis System Equipped Vessel No. 1 (Part 3)," ¥139,700,000,000 (August 2024). Reason: "The capability survey found Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to be the only company with the capability; a standing public notice inviting new entrants has drawn no respondent."
- Japan Marine United Corporation — "Construction of Aegis System Equipped Vessel No. 2 (Part 2)," ¥132,403,700,000 (September 2024). Same reasoning pattern (this company alone confirmed to hold the capability).
- Mitsubishi Electric Corporation — "Type 03 Medium-Range Surface-to-Air Guided Missile (Improved), " ¥64,983,600,000 (April 2025). Reason: "Mitsubishi Electric alone holds both the required technology/facilities and the manufacturing permit under the Weapons Manufacturing Act and the sales permit under the Explosives Control Act."
- Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. — "Patriot surface-to-air guided missile, re-certified rounds," ¥75,406,854,600 (January 2025). Reason: performance requires holding a US-government-approved technical assistance agreement with Raytheon (US) — a condition currently met only by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
Pattern 3: government-to-government procurement under the Japan-US Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement
This last pattern is not about a sole Japanese company at all — the counterparty is a US government entity itself (e.g. the US Department of the Air Force), and the procurement runs through the Japan-US Mutual Defense Assistance (MDA) Agreement framework between the two governments. Examples:
The published reason is identical in every case: "This contract is a procurement under the Japan-US Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement. (Legal basis: the Japan-US Mutual Defense Assistance (MDA) Agreement.)"
- US Department of the Air Force — "F-35A/B fighter aircraft," ¥266,756,251,358 (November 2024)
- US Department of the Air Force — "KC-46A" (aerial refueling tanker), ¥222,441,364,350 (July 2025)
- US Department of the Air Force — "F-35 ALGS [Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment] posture buildup," ¥86,227,160,400 (February 2026)
What this does not establish
These are quotations and summaries of published justification text, with no assessment or interpretation added by Hashike. In particular: that a company received a sole-source award does not mean it will continue to be the sole qualified supplier in that field going forward. The certification criteria and application process for specific-initiative (特定取組) status are set out in the Defense Production Base Reinforcement Act and its implementing ministerial ordinances — this guide does not explain that process. The specific methods and standards ATLA uses for a capability survey or public solicitation are set procurement-by-procurement; the examples here are quotations of published outcomes, not a description of the method itself. For anything specific to your own situation, consult ATLA and the primary legal sources directly.
Sources
See US federal opportunities performed in Japan
Hashike tracks US federal contract opportunities performed in Japan and shows the comparable award history behind each one. Every account includes a 14-day free trial.
Get updates on new opportunities
This page is informational only, not legal advice. Confirm eligibility and procedural details against the official solicitation and the relevant agency.← Back to all guides