C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM › Subpart 1.1—Purpose, Authority, Issuance

48 C.F.R. § 1.102

1.102 Statement of guiding principles for the Federal Acquisition System.

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

(a) The vision for the Federal Acquisition System is to deliver on a timely basis the best value product or service to the customer, while maintaining the public's trust and fulfilling public policy objectives. Participants in the acquisition process should work together as a team and should be empowered to make decisions within their area of responsibility.

(b) The Federal Acquisition System will—

(1) Satisfy the customer in terms of cost, quality, and timeliness of the delivered product or service by, for example—

(i) Maximizing the use of commercial products and commercial services;

(ii) Using contractors who have a track record of successful past performance or who demonstrate a current superior ability to perform; and

(iii) Promoting competition;

(2) Minimize administrative operating costs;

(3) Conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness; and

(4) Fulfill public policy objectives.

(c) The Acquisition Team consists of all participants in Government acquisition including not only representatives of the technical, supply, and procurement communities but also the customers they serve, and the contractors who provide the products and services.

(d) The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer's needs. In exercising initiative, Government members of the Acquisition Team may assume if a specific strategy, practice, policy or procedure is in the best interests of the Government and is not addressed in the FAR nor prohibited by law (statute or case law), Executive order or other regulation, that the strategy, practice, policy or procedure is a permissible exercise of authority.

[60 FR 34733, July 3, 1995, as amended at 86 FR 61019, Nov. 4, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Information Sciences Corp. v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Information Sciences Corp. v. United States (2008) uscfc · cites it 6× “at 15 (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 (b)). Therefore, the United States Court of Federal Claims has held that FAR 1.”
MORI Associates, Inc. v. United States (2011) uscfc · cites it 2× “These include the statement that the government’s procurement system will “[cjonduet business with integrity, fairness, and openness,” 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 (b)(3) (2010), which is buttressed by the performance standard that “[a]ll contractors and prospective contractors shall be…”
Caddell Construction Company v. United States (2016) uscfc “Agencies involved in procuring contracts must “[c]onduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness — ” 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 (b)(3). This provision of the FAR gives rise to “mandatory duties that constrain the Government’s discretion in dealing with bidders.”
Tyler Construction Group v. United States (2009) cafc “102(d), 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 (d), which states: The role of each member of the Acquisition Team is to exercise personal initiative and sound business judgment in providing the best value product or service to meet the customer’s needs.”
Linc Government Services, LLC v. United States (2012) uscfc · cites it 2× “102(b)(3), 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 (b)(3) (requiring integrity, fairness, and openness in procurement process); 1.”
FFTF Restoration Co. v. United States (2009) uscfc “102(b)(3), 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 (b)(3) (2004), and FAR 1.”
BayFirst Solutions, LLC v. United States (2012) uscfc “9 These regulations include 48 C.F.R. §§ 1.102 (b)(3); 1.102-2(e)(3); 1.”
Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company v. Lawrence H. Garrett, Iii, Secretary of the Navy (1994) cafc “See also 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 (b) (1991) (“The FAR is prepared, issued, and maintained, and the FAR System is prescribed, jointly by the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration-”).”
Res Rei Development, Inc. v. United States (2016) uscfc “Res Rei maintains that the actions alleged in its complaint were taken arbitrarily and capriciously, and improperly gave preferential treatment to its competitors, in violation of the FAR’s guiding principles, 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 , see Compl. ¶¶ 95-99; contrary to the FAR…”
MTB Group, Inc. v. United States (2005) uscfc · cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.102 (d) (2004). While 48 C.”
Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. United States (2018) cafc “And when conflicting interests arise, assurance of fair dealing is a judicial responsibility.”
Mori Associates, Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc “§ 3301 (a), and 48 C.F.R. §§ 1.102 (b)(3), 1.102-2(c)(3), 1.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— 48 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(ii) — 1 case
Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. v. SourceAmerica (2019) casd
— 48 C.F.R. § 1.102(b)(iii) — 1 case
Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. v. SourceAmerica (2019) casd
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.