32 C.F.R. § 3.1

Purpose

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

This part consolidates rules that implement section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, 107 Stat. 1547, as amended, and have a significant impact on the public. Section 845 authorizes the Secretary of a Military Department, the Director of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and any other official designated by the Secretary of Defense, to enter into transactions other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements in certain situations for prototype projects that are directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be acquired or developed by the Department of Defense.

[67 FR 54956, Aug. 27, 2002]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2025–2025 · leading case: Telesto Grp., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Telesto Grp., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “The decision by an agency not to renew a task 10 For example, the EBS-C program might have been challenged successfully at the outset, because 32 C.F.R. § 3.1 limits the use of OTs to “prototype projects that are directly relevant to weapons or weapon systems proposed to be…”

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.