Governments, and in many instances, private and non-profit sector acquisition professionals (e.g., contracting officers, contracting specialist, procurement officials, etc.) are authorized to bypass traditional methods of directly competing contracts on the open market, and applying more streamlined 'indirect' procedures when certain favorable conditions involving Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB) and Minority Business Enterprises (MBE) are met. Despite however being less administratively and legally burdensome, and imminently more beneficial to the small business community, there may exist certain attitudes, beliefs, values, experiences, and emotional stimuli that encompass: 1) views on merit-based social and distributive justice; 2) impacts of rigid organizational culture and norms; 3) perceptions of ensuing contract risks and uncertainties; 4) reactions to information asymmetry during contract negotiations; 5) responses to acquisition professional role stressors; 6) effects of contract negotiation induced anxieties, and 7) Principal/Agent relationship expectations that disincentivize the sanctioned use of single-source indirect competition as a means of procuring goods and services. It is in consideration of such prospective third-party institutional buyer behavior, this study seeks to uncover the antecedent effects the seven aforementioned factors, and the moderating effects 'familiarity' with the indirect competition process have on discretionary decisions acquisition professionals make in connection with directly or indirectly competing and award contracts to SDBs or MBEs.