How the Food Processor Contract Program Affects the Food Supply

The Food Processor Acquisition Program (FAP) is an agreement between the Department of Defense and the Food and Drug Administration to buy food products for the US military and civilian food service programs.

Under the FAP, the Department is entitled to purchase food products from the FAS for food service contracts that are awarded by the DOD to the Department or contractors.

Under current law, this is allowed, as long as there is a “compelling reason” for doing so.

But in a recent opinion article by David L. Boren, an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, the Defense Department said that the FCPP was not “capable of providing the necessary flexibility for military operations,” in the same article that called for the FOP to be scrapped.

In addition, the Pentagon’s defense contractor, General Dynamics, has been sued by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), a federal law that requires the Department to pay a price for its products.

Under FDCA, the price is based on a market value for each of the products.

This is the same value that the Defense Acquisition Board (DARPA) calculates the cost of food to produce and then reimburses to the DOD.

The DIA recently announced that it will phase out its purchase of food products, and the DOD said in its FOP decision that it would have to take steps to keep the contract.

The military would then have to pay for the food from DOD.

According to the Defense, the “availability of alternative source materials for the procurement of food items has increased substantially in recent years, and DOD has been able to leverage its existing procurement processes to expedite the process for acquisition of new food supply contracts.

The acquisition of food is a critical aspect of DOD’s ongoing efforts to meet the food needs of its combatant commands.

Accordingly, it is critical that the DOD maintain its purchasing authority to procure food products.”

This is not the first time that the Food Processing Contract Program (FPCP) has been controversial.

In 2011, a federal judge ruled that the program could be eliminated, but in 2017, a separate judge upheld the program’s continuation, saying that the law required that the government pay a “fair market value” for the product.

Since then, the military has been pushing back on the FFPP, but this time the argument is more direct.

According the Defense’s arguments, there is no such thing as a “market value” because the FBP was originally created to make sure the military could purchase “substantially identical” products that are also manufactured by other companies.

The FAP “has no such definition of a market price,” and “the Pentagon’s position is that, by definition, no one can make an ‘ideal’ ‘market price for a commodity’ in the marketplace,” the Defense argued in its decision.

In the same decision, the judge found that the Army did not have a valid reason to keep its FCP, and that the fact that the Department has a greater interest in ensuring its FBP is “not duplicative of any other contract program in which it has participated.”

The Pentagon argues that the “DOD contract for the Department’s food program is a military contract, and therefore DOD must ensure that the prices that DOD pays for the Food Program are competitive,” the article reads.

In an earlier opinion, a judge in January found that it was “simply impossible” for DOD to keep paying the price that the military had been paying for its FFPPs.

The decision has not yet been appealed.

The Defense is not alone in its arguments, however.

The DOD is also taking the argument that there is “no such thing” as a market for food and making it into a defense argument.

In a recent case, the Justice Department argued that the Pentagon was required to pay the price for food that the agency “would have to bear if it was unable to buy the same goods and services from another manufacturer,” as it would not be able to sell the same “product” to the military.

This argument has become so prevalent that even the Department acknowledges that it has not been able “to provide the DOD with any alternative source material” for its food.