48 C.F.R. § 1.602
1.602 Contracting officers.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1985–2018 · leading case: Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.3d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.3d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “” 48 C.F.R. §§ 1.602 , 2.101. Nondisclosure agreements need not incur expendi- ture; the issue here is disclosure of information, not expenditure.”
United States of Am., Ex Rel., Paul Biddle v. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford, Jr. Univ., 161 F.3d 533 (9th Cir. 1998). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602 -l(a). “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.”
Gary v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 202 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602 -l(a). “Information on the limits of the contracting officers’ authority shall be readily available to the public and agency personnel.”
Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 764 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “Matters formerly brought under the implied contract theory are now protected under 48 C.F.R. § 1.602 — 2(b). See B & B Med. Servs.”
Ingham Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “According to defendant, this means that contracts were required to be awarded by a warranted contracting officer, which Deputy Director Hunter was not because she lacked a contracting officer’s warrant, pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 1.602 (2010). The version of 32 C.”
Linc Gov't Servs., LLC v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 473 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “] 48 C.F.R. § 1.602 — 2(b). . The clerical errors identified did not affect the ratings or were too minor to warrant setting aside the MATOC Contract awards.”
Pacord, Inc. v. United States of Am. a & E Indus., Inc., 139 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 1998). “48 C.F.R. § 1.602 -l(b). One government contract requirement is contained in 48 C.”
United States of Am., Ex Rel., Paul Biddle v. Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford, Jr. Univ., 147 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 1998). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602 -l(a). “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.”
HWA, Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 685 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “3,1989) (citing 48 C.F.R. § 1.602 ). While there is undoubtedly a strong argument that requiring contracting officers to take into account reasonably available, current, negative past performance information safeguards the interests of the United States, this Court is unprepared…”
AEY, Inc. v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 300 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “” 48 C.F.R. § 1.602 -l(b). In this vein, DFARS 225.”
Horn & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 121 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “” Additionally, 48 C.F.R. § 1.602-3 (c) states that the authority to ratify can only be exercised when “[t]he ratifying official has the authority to enter into a contractual commitment,” 48 C.”
Gardiner v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 145 F.3d 635 (3rd Cir. 1998). “" 48 CFR § 1.602 -l(a). Part 4401 of FAR "sets forth policies and *533 procedures concerning the Federal Emergency Management Agency Acquisition Regulation (FEMAAR) System.”
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.