Contracting officers are responsible for ensuring performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensuring compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships. In order to perform these responsibilities, contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment. Contracting officers shall—
(a) Ensure that the requirements of 1.602-1(b) have been met, and that sufficient funds are available for obligation;
(b) Ensure that contractors receive impartial, fair, and equitable treatment;
(c) Request and consider the advice of specialists in audit, law, engineering, information security, transportation, and other fields, as appropriate; and
(d) Designate and authorize, in writing and in accordance with agency procedures, a contracting officer's representative (COR) on all contracts and orders other than those that are firm-fixed price, and for firm-fixed-price contracts and orders as appropriate, unless the contracting officer retains and executes the COR duties. See 7.104(e). A COR—
(1) Shall be a Government employee, unless otherwise authorized in agency regulations;
(2) Shall be certified and maintain certification in accordance with the current Office of Management and Budget memorandum on the Federal Acquisition Certification for Contracting Officer Representatives (FAC-COR) guidance, or for DoD, in accordance with the current applicable DoD policy guidance;
(3) Shall be qualified by training and experience commensurate with the responsibilities to be delegated in accordance with agency procedures;
(4) May not be delegated responsibility to perform functions that have been delegated under 42.202 to a contract administration office, but may be assigned some duties at 42.302 by the contracting officer;
(5) Has no authority to make any commitments or changes that affect price, quality, quantity, delivery, or other terms and conditions of the contract nor in any way direct the contractor or its subcontractors to operate in conflict with the contract terms and conditions;
(6) Shall be nominated either by the requiring activity or in accordance with agency procedures; and
(7) Shall be designated in writing, with copies furnished to the contractor and the contract administration office—
(i) Specifying the extent of the COR's authority to act on behalf of the contracting officer;
(ii) Identifying the limitations on the COR's authority;
(iii) Specifying the period covered by the designation;
(iv) Stating the authority is not redelegable; and
(v) Stating that the COR may be personally liable for unauthorized acts.
[48 FR 42103, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 70 FR 57451, Sept. 30, 2005; 76 FR 14545, Mar. 16, 2011; 77 FR 12926, Mar. 2, 2012; 78 FR 37676, June 21, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Rda Constr. Corp. v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 732 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
· cites it 6× “Whether The February 21, 2013 Notice Of Termination Was “Fair And Impartial,” Pursuant To 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-2 . ii. Whether The Naval Facilities Command Established That RDA Construction Was In Default As Of The Termination Date.”
R & W Flammann Gmbh v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “1986), for the proposition that procurement officers must act to prevent even an appearance of impropriety in order to meet FAR requirements of “safeguarding the interests of the United States in its contractual relationships,” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-2 (2000), and ensuring that…”
RAM Eng'g & Constr., Inc. v. Univ. of Louisville, 127 S.W.3d 579 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 4× “§ 2305 ; 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-2 . Thus, to accommodate CICA's fairness requirements, the contracting officer may need to terminate a contract for the Government's convenience to further full and open competition.”
BayFirst Solutions, LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 493 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
· cites it 3× “The Agency’s Cancellation of the Solicitation Survives Review BayFirst alleges that the Agency violated 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-2 (b) and 48 C.F.R. § 3.”
Enhanced Vets. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 565 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“at 47 (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-2 (b)). 26 Three specific examples are provided by eVETS to demonstrate this alleged disparate treatment, as eVETS contends it did not receive strengths for similar qualities and elements that warranted strengths in the evaluations of other…”
Krygoski Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 94 F.3d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 2305 ; 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-2 . Thus, to accommodate CICA’s fairness requirements, the contracting officer may need to terminate a contract for the Government’s convenience to further full and open competition.”
OSG Prod. Tankers LLC v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 3× “”) (internal quotes omitted); see also 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-2 (“contracting officers should be allowed wide latitude to exercise business judgment”).”
Chenega Mgmt., LLC v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 556 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the Air Force “later acted to cover up the unequal treatment” by awarding the Contract to DRG to avoid scrutiny of the illegal gratuity.”
Inserso Corp. v. United States, 961 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“505 and, in addition, violated at least one regulation specifically addressed to disparate treatment of bidders, 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-2 (b). Inserso moved for judg- ment on the administrative record, and the government op- posed Inserso’s motion and cross-moved for judgment on 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.