4 C.F.R. § 21.6
Withholding of award and suspension of contract performance
When a protest is filed, the agency may be required to withhold award and to suspend contract performance. The requirements for the withholding of award and the suspension of contract performance are set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3553(c) and (d); GAO does not administer the requirements to withhold award or suspend contract performance. An agency shall file a notification in instances where it overrides a requirement to withhold award or suspend contract performance, and it shall file either a copy of any issued determination and finding, or a statement by the individual who approved the determination and finding that explains the statutory basis for the override.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2021 · leading case: DTH Mgmt. Grp. v. Kelso, 844 F. Supp. 251 (E.D.N.C. 1993).
DTH Mgmt. Grp. v. Kelso, 844 F. Supp. 251 (E.D.N.C. 1993). “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that 4 C.F.R. § 21.6 (b) (1993), directs the GAO to consider all circumstances surrounding the proposed procurement, including the “the extent of performance” on the contract, in fashioning a remedy if it finds a proposed award in violation of law.”
Nika Tech., Inc. v. United States, 987 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “4 C.F.R. § 21.6 . Therefore, in order to receive judicial review regard- ing a GAO stay of procurement activities, a party has at most 100 days for proceedings at the Court of Federal Claims (concerning whether a protest at the GAO was filed in time for the protester to invoke…”
Mark Dunning Indus., Inc. v. Cheney, 726 F. Supp. 810 (M.D. Ala. 1989). “The GAO’s initial decision did not mention prejudice as a factor in its recommendation that the Army award the contract to Reliable Trash, although prejudice is a permissible consideration under 4 CFR § 21.6 (b). Mark Dunning requested reconsideration of that decision in a…”
Svd Stars II, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “§ 3553 (d)(3), 4 C.F.R. § 21.6 , and FAR 33.104(c)(3), (d)).”
Svd Stars II, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “§ 3553 (d)(3), 4 C.F.R. § 21.6 , and FAR 33.104(c)(3), (d)).”
CDM Constructors, Inc. (A.S.B.C.A. 2018). “§ 3553 (d), 4 C.F.R. § 21.6 , and FAR 33.104(c), performance of the contract is suspended, pending resolution of the protest.”
Safeguard Base Operations, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “On October 2, 2018, Robin Fowler, “Head of the Contracting Activity, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers,” issued the Agency’s Determination and Findings for the override, which stated that the Agency was overriding the CICA stay “both based upon urgent and compelling…”
Safeguard Base Operations, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “On October 2, 2018, Robin Fowler, “Head of the Contracting Activity, Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers,” issued the Agency’s Determination and Findings for the override, which stated that the Agency was overriding the CICA stay “both based upon urgent and compelling…”
Nika Tech., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). “In this protest, NIKA sought the imposition of “the automatic suspension of contract performance pursuant to 4 C.F.R. § 21.6 [,] 31 U.S.C. § 3553 (c)(1), and FAR § 33.”
TEAC Am., Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 876 F. Supp. 289 (D.D.C. 1995). “§ 3554 (b)(2); 4 C.F.R. § 21.6 . Plaintiff argues that any performance by Precision before May 5, 1995 will nonetheless deplete the budget allocated to CVRS recorders, but plaintiff has not offered any evidence of this eventuality.”
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.