41 C.F.R. § 51-2.7

Fair market price

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

(a) The Committee is responsible for determining fair market prices, and changes thereto, for commodities and services on the Procurement List. The Committee is responsible for determining fair market prices, and changes thereto, for commodities and services on the Procurement List. The initial fair market price may be based on, where applicable, bilateral negotiations between contracting activities and authorized nonprofit agencies, market research, comparing the previous price paid, price competition, or any other methodology specified in Committee policies and procedures.

(b) The initial fair market price may be revised in accordance with the methodologies established by the Committee, which include, where applicable, bilateral negotiations between contracting activities and authorized nonprofit agencies assisted by central nonprofit agencies, the use of economic indices, price competition, or any other methodology permitted under the Committee's policies and procedures.

(c) After review and analysis, the central nonprofit agency shall submit to the Committee the recommended fair market price and, where a change to the fair market price is recommended, the methods by which prices shall be changed to the Committee, along with the information required by Committee pricing procedures to support each recommendation. The Committee will review the recommendations, revise the recommended prices where appropriate, and establish a fair market price, or change thereto, for each commodity or service which is the subject of a recommendation.

[64 FR 55842, Oct. 15, 1999, as amended at 89 FR 20338, Mar. 22, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case: Melwood Horticultural Training Ctr., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Melwood Horticultural Training Ctr., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). · cites it 13× “” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.7 (b); see also 41 C.F.R.”

McGregor Printing Corp. v. Kemp, 20 F.3d 1188 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “5 (1990); see 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.7 (1993) (substantially similar).”

McGregor Printing Corp. v. Kemp, 802 F. Supp. 519 (D.D.C. 1992). “” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.7 (d). In the case at hand, the Committee considered adding 0996 tabulating paper to the Procurement List pursuant to a memo by the NIB on May 21, 1991, recommending such an addition.”

Melwood Horticultural Training Ctr., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). · cites it 5× “41 C.F.R. § 51-2.7 (a). The “contracting activity” is “any element of an entity of the Government that has responsibility for identifying and/or procuring Government requirements for commodities or services.”

Sekri, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). · cites it 4× “Additionally, 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.7 (b) provides: “Prices are revised in accordance with changing market conditions under [AbilityOne] procedures, which include negotiations between contracting activities and producing nonprofit agencies, assisted by central nonprofit agencies, or…”

Pride Indus., Inc. v. Comm. for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (E.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 3× “” 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.7 (a). The 11 Committee may revise prices in the face of changing market conditions, “which include 12 negotiations between contracting activities and producing [NPAs], assisted by [CNAs], or the use 13 of economic indices, changes in nonprofit agency costs,…”

Goodwill Indus. of South Florida, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). · cites it 2× “50 In accordance with 41 CFR 51-2.7, change to the FMP [Fair Market Price] outside of the approved methodology above and provisions in the U.”

Sekri, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). “) The contracting officer averred that if the parties cannot agree on a price, then the DLA will engage in the Committee impasse process contemplated by 41 C.F.R. § 51-2.7 . (Id. at ¶ 16.) According to communications between the DLA and SourceAmerica included in the…”

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.