48 C.F.R. § 1.000
1.000 Scope of part.
This part sets forth basic policies and general information about the Federal Acquisition Regulations System including purpose, authority, applicability, issuance, arrangement, numbering, dissemination, implementation, supplementation, maintenance, administration, and deviation. Subparts 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 prescribe administrative procedures for maintaining the FAR System.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: John Miller, Jr. v. Hillary Clinton, 687 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
John Miller, Jr. v. Hillary Clinton, 687 F.3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “See 48 C.F.R. §§ 1.000 et seq. Provisions of the FAR deal in detail with the negotiation, making, and performance of contracts, and with the performance of work.”
Transactive Corp. v. United States of Am. & Robert E. Rubin, Sec'y of Treasury, 91 F.3d 232 (D.C. Cir. 1996). “, further described in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), 48 C.F.R. § 1.000 et seq. The IEI procedure differs in several respects from the CICA bidding process.”
United States v. Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Va. 2003). “Most the contracts are flexibly-priced contracts, under which NNS charges the government on an ongoing basis based on its reasonable, allo-cable, and allowable costs, as determined according to the FAR 48 C.F.R. §§ 1.000 et seq. These costs include (i) direct costs that are…”
United States of Am. John C. Cox v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 139 F.3d 984 (4th Cir. 1998). “The applicable provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), which govern federal procurement of goods and services, 48 C.F.R. § 1.000 et seq., mandate that, before awarding a contract, the agency must affirmatively determine that the bidder is “responsible.”
Treadway v. Jones, 583 So. 2d 119 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “Basically, HANO is concerned because HUD officials recommended that the managment proposals be confidential. HANO's desire to defer to HUD's preference does not justify HANO's refusal to produce the proposals.”
Grigsby Brandford & Co., Inc. v. United States, 869 F. Supp. 984 (D.D.C. 1994). “, as well as the Department of Education’s Acquisition Regulation, by failing to “evaluate the proposals to serve as the [DBA] solely on the criteria, standards, and evaluation factors specified by the Secretary” in the solicitation notice.”
Mgmt. Ass'n for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors v. United States, 467 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Va. 2006). “The Federal Acquisition Regulation is in fact a voluminous set of regulatory provisions beginning at 48 C.F.R. § 1.000 and including the provision here at issue, 48 C.”
Mgmt. Ass'n for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors v. United States, 492 F. Supp. 2d 540 (E.D. Va. 2007). “Following the passage of the 1988 amendment, the FAR Council — the administrative body 6 charged with administering and overseeing the application of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 1.000 et seq. — undertook in 1991 to clarify by regulation precisely what was…”
Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Kelly, 69 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Mass. 1999). “The purpose to promote competition permeates both CICA and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), 48 C.F.R. § 1.000 et seq. Thus, for property or services procurements, executive agencies, except in rare circumstances, are required to “obtain full and open competition…”
Hutchins v. Dyncorp Int'l, Inc. (D.D.C. 2018). “Army was governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. 1.000 et seq., and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), 48 C.”
Crowley Gov't Servs., Inc. v. Gen. Servs. Admin. (D.D.C. 2023). “3 USTRANSCOM awarded Crowley the DFTS Contract under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. § 1.000 et seq., which implements statutory provisions authorizing executive agencies, including DoD, to procure goods and services.”
Ferguson v. Lockheed Martin (5th Cir. 2026). “; 1 the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 C.F.R. § 1.000 , et seq.; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), 48 C.”
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.