48 C.F.R. § 1.103

1.103 Authority.

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

(a) The development of the FAR System is in accordance with the requirements of 41 U.S.C. chapter 13, Acquisition Councils.

(b) 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, under their several statutory authorities.

[48 FR 42103, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 27116, July 29, 1986. Redesignated at 60 FR 34733, July 3, 1995, as amended at 65 FR 36014, June 6, 2000; 79 FR 24194, Apr. 29, 2014]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Aerolease Long Beach v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 342 (Fed. Cl. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Aerolease Long Beach v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 342 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “103, 48 C.F.R. § 1.103 (1992). Based on these reasons, the defendant concludes: “Since a lease is an interest in land, it is specifically excluded from the coverage of the FAR * * Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration, at 6-7.”

Bradford v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 101 F.4th 707 (10th Cir. 2024). “The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which heads of agencies—including the Administrator of General Services—promulgated pursuant to authority granted under FPASA, see 48 C.F.R. § 1.103 (b); 40 U.S.C. § 121 (c), explains the difference between “personal” and “nonpersonal”…”

Knowledge Connections, Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 6 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “48 C.F.R. § 1.103 (b) (2006). The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council, chaired by GSA, and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council are charged with revising the FAR.”

Saratoga Dev. Corp. v. United States, 21 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 1994). · cites it 3× “” 48 CFR §§ 1.103 , 2.101. Likewise, the CICA applies only to government “procurements”.”

Alaska Pulp Corp. v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 100 (Fed. Cl. 1995). “48 C.F.R. §§ 1.103 , 2.101, 33.203(a) (1994).”

Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am. (M.D. Tenn. 2024). “See 48 C.F.R. § 1.103 (discussing authority for propounding the Federal Acquisition Regulations System).”

Action Serv. Corp. v. Garrett, 797 F. Supp. 82 (D.P.R. 1992). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.103 . The services requested by the Navy in this case fall within the definition in 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.