41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6

Reconsideration of Committee decision

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

(a) The Committee may reconsider its decision to add items to the Procurement List if it receives pertinent information which was not before it when it initially made the decision. Unless otherwise provided by the Committee, requests for reconsideration from interested persons must be received by the Committee within 60 days following the effective date of the addition in question. A request for reconsideration must include the specific facts believed by the interested person to justify a decision by the Committee to modify or reverse its earlier action.

(b) In reconsidering its decision, the Committee will balance the harm to the party requesting reconsideration if the item remains on the Procurement List against the harm which the nonprofit agency or its employees who are blind or have other severe disabilities would suffer if the item were deleted from the Procurement List. The Committee may also consider information bringing into question its conclusions on the suitability criteria on which it based its original decision as factors weighing toward a decision to delete the item, and information concerning possible harm to the Government and the JWOD Program as factors weighing toward confirmation of the original decision.

[56 FR 48977, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 59342, Nov. 16, 1994]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1985–2014 · leading case: HLI Lordship Indus., Inc. v. Comm. for Purchase, 615 F. Supp. 970 (E.D. Va. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

HLI Lordship Indus., Inc. v. Comm. for Purchase, 615 F. Supp. 970 (E.D. Va. 1985). · cites it 2× “41 CFR § 51-2.6 (d). No one disputes that plaintiff was the most recent supplier of at least some of the medals and medal sets.”

McGregor Printing Corp. v. Kemp, 802 F. Supp. 519 (D.D.C. 1992). · cites it 8× “” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6 (a), (b). In making additions or deletions to the list, the Committee must also comply with the informal rulemaking procedures established in subsections 553(b) — 553(e) of the APA, 5 U.”

McGregor Printing Corp. v. Kemp, 20 F.3d 1188 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6 (1990); see 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.”

Akima Intra-Data, LLC v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 520 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6 . Once the contract is included on the Ability-One procurement list, it must be filled through the contractor identified by CFP unless and until CFP removes the product or service from the procurement list.”

HLI Lordship Indus., Inc. v. Comm. for Purchase from the Blind & Other Severely Handicapped, 791 F.2d 1136 (4th Cir. 1986). · cites it 5× “” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6 (b) (1984). The Committee’s regulations also require it to consider whether the addition of the commodity or service to the Procurement List will have a “serious adverse impact on the current or most recent contractor for the commodity or service.”

McGregor Printing Corp. v. Kemp, 811 F. Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1993). “” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6 (a), (b) (1990). 2 . In the decision granting McGregor's motion for a preliminary injunction, Judge Revercomb found that the balance of hardships tipped in McGregor’s favor because the blind workshops had only a prospective stake in manufacturing 0996, while…”

Bros. Cleaning Serv., Inc. v. Chair, 26 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1998). · cites it 2× “41 C.F.R. § 51-2.6 . Plaintiff claims that it should have been considered the current contractor for Eisenhower Hall because it was performing “on call” services there.”

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.