C.F.R. » Title 24 » PART 85—ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS TO STATE, LOCAL AND FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

24 C.F.R. § 85.1

Applicability of and cross reference to 2 CFR part 200

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Federal awards with State, local and Indian tribal governments are subject to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200.

(b) Federal awards made prior to December 26, 2014 will continue to be governed by the regulations in effect and codified in 24 CFR part 85 (2013 edition) or as provided by the terms of the Federal award. Where the terms of a Federal award made prior to December 26, 2014, state that the award will be subject to regulations as may be amended, the Federal award shall be subject to 2 CFR part 200.

[79 FR 76079, Dec. 19, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: Lummi Tribe of Lummi Reservation, Washington v. United States, 870 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lummi Tribe of Lummi Reservation, Washington v. United States, 870 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “316 ; see generally 24 C.F.R. §§ 85.1 , 1000.26. The Tribes are even restricted with respect to the particular bidding and bond terms they may use for, say, housing construction contracts.”
Linan-Faye Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Camden, 49 F.3d 915 (3rd Cir. 1995). “The regulations concerning CIAP grants, collected at 24 C.F.R. § 85.1 et seq., differ from the FAR's applicable to direct government procurement contracts.”
Linan-Faye Constr. Co. v. Hous. Auth., 847 F. Supp. 1191 (D.N.J. 1994). “These provisions, which are collected in the Uniform Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local, and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments (the “Uniform Requirements”), 24 C.F.R. § 85.1 et seq., include a requirement that all CIAP contracts in…”
San Antonio Hous. Auth. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). · cites it 2× “316 ; see generally 24 C.F.R. §§ 85.1 , 1000.26. The Tribes are even restricted with respect to the particular bidding and bond terms they may use for, say, housing construction contracts.”
Boaz Hous. Auth. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “316 and citing 24 C.F.R. §§ 85.1 , 1000.26). “To label the disbursement of funds so thoroughly scrutinized and cabined as a remedy for ‘damages,’” the court of appeals held, “would strain the meaning of the term to its breaking point.”
Hous. Auth. of the City of Slidell (Fed. Cl. 2020). “And this is [the] 49See 24 CFR § 85.1 (a) (“Federal awards with State, local and Indian tribal governments are subject to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200.”
Hous. Auth. of the City of Slidell (Fed. Cl. 2020). “And this is [the] 49See 24 CFR § 85.1 (a) (“Federal awards with State, local and Indian tribal governments are subject to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200.”
Linan v. Hous. Auth. /Camden (3rd Cir. 1995). “The regulations concerning CIAP grants, collected at 24 C.F.R. § 85.1 et seq., differ from the FAR's applicable to direct government procurement contracts.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.