48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1
1.602-1 Authority.
(a) Contracting officers have authority to enter into, administer, or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings. Contracting officers may bind the Government only to the extent of the authority delegated to them. Contracting officers shall receive from the appointing authority (see 1.603-1) clear instructions in writing regarding the limits of their authority. Information on the limits of the contracting officers' authority shall be readily available to the public and agency personnel.
(b) No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Jt. Venture, 497 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Jt. Venture, 497 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “See 48 C.F.R. §§ 1.602-1 , -2. When authorized, the contracting officer may delegate some of its authority to certain designated representatives, who act on behalf of the government during contract administration.”
Phillip Layton v. United States of Am., Reba J. Richardson, Adm'x of the Est. of Ronnie Richardson, Deceased v. United States, 984 F.2d 1496 (8th Cir. 1993). “”); 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1 (b) (1991) (“No contract shall be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that .”
OSG Prod. Tankers LLC v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “See 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1 (b) (“No contract should be entered into unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, .”
Gulf Grp. Gen. Enter. Co. W.l.l., Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant, 114 Fed. Cl. 258 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “” (citing 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1 )). In sum, defendant has not adequately connected the dots between Mr.”
Council for Tribal Emp. Rights v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 231 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1 (a). In this instance, information about Ms.”
Indus. Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 318 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1 (2003). The weight that is to be accorded to each factor and subfactor is set out in the RFP itself.”
S & M Mgmt. Inc. v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 240 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1 (1998). Encompassed within such authority is the power to “execute contract modifications on behalf of the Government.”
Pacord, Inc. v. United States of Am. a & E Indus., Inc., 139 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 1998). “The FAR specifically limits the authority of contracting officers when it provides that “Contracting officers .”
United States v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. (In Re Frontier Airlines, Inc.), 146 B.R. 574 (D. Colo. 1992). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1 . By requiring that a claim be submitted in writing to the contracting officer, the regulations again ensure that a written notice of the claim will be directed to the person or persons with the authority and expertise to consider and process the claims.”
GASA, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 325 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1 ; see Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Joint Venture, 497 F.”
Winterbottom v. Underriner (D. Haw. 2019). “2 (Count 3); (3) violation of 48 C.F.R § 1.602-1 (Count 4); and (4) violation of “at least spirit of” 42 C.”
Winterbottom v. Underriner (D. Haw. 2019). “2 (Count 3); (3) violation of 48 C.F.R § 1.602-1 (Count 4); and (4) violation of “at least spirit of” 42 C.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-1(a) — 1 case
Slsco, Ltd. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025).
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.