The sale of advertised timber shall be awarded to the responsible bidder submitting the highest bid that conforms to the conditions of the sale as stated in the prospectus unless:
(a) Determination is made to reject all bids.
(b) Two or more bidders, all of whom meet the requirements, submit equal bids which are the highest bids, in which case award may be by the drawing of lots. Equal bids from parties having direct or indirect common control or association in logging, processing or marketing may be consolidated to the extent deemed necessary by the awarding officer in order to give to any others who have bid the same amount an equitable opportunity in the drawing of lots.
(c) The highest bidder is notoriously or habitually careless with fire.
(d) Monopoly, injurious to the public welfare, would result from the control of large amounts of public or of public and private timber.
(e) The high bidder has elected Forest Service road construction in response to an advertisement extending such an option, the Forest Service cannot perform the construction and in response to solicitation has not received a satisfactory bid for such construction within the period stated in the prospectus and the high timber sale bidder is unwilling to perform the construction.
[44 FR 73029, Dec. 17, 1979. Redesignated at 49 FR 2761, Jan. 23, 1984, and amended at 50 FR 32696, Aug. 14, 1985; 53 FR 33132, Aug. 30, 1988]
Notes of Decisions
Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Evans, 771 F. Supp. 1081 (W.D. Wash. 1991).
“36 C.F.R. 223.100. 44. Over the past decade many timber jobs have been lost and mills closed in the Pacific Northwest.”
Wetsel-Oviatt Lumber Co. v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 557 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
· cites it 2× “Harris and the Forest Service’s rejection were premised upon 36 C.F.R. § 223.100 (a) 13 and Item 8 of the Instruction to bidders.”
Pew Forest Prods. v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 59 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“See 36 C.F.R. § 223.100 (indicating, for example, that the agency may not award the contract if the highest bidder is “notoriously or habitually careless with fire” or the result would result in a “monopoly” over “large amounts of public and private timber”).”
Prineville Sawmill Co. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 186 (Ct. Cl. 1988).
“Thus, it is clear that the discretion of procurement officials who are acquiring goods or services is, by regulation, different and more circumscribed than that of Forest Service timber sale officials under 36 C.F.R. § 223.100 (a), which does not require a “compelling reason to…”
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.