48 C.F.R. § 12.203

12.203 Procedures for solicitation, evaluation, and award.

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

(a) Contracting officers shall use the policies unique to the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services prescribed in this part in conjunction with the policies and procedures for solicitation, evaluation and award prescribed in part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures; part 14, Sealed Bidding; or part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as appropriate for the particular acquisition. The contracting officer may use the streamlined procedure for soliciting offers for commercial products or commercial services prescribed in 12.603. For acquisitions of commercial products or commercial services exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold but not exceeding $9 million ($15 million for acquisitions as described in 13.500(c)), including options, contracting activities may use any of the simplified procedures authorized by subpart 13.5.

(b) Contracting officers shall ensure the criteria at 15.101-2(c) are met when using the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process.

[60 FR 48241, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 264, Jan. 2, 1997; 62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997; 69 FR 8313, Feb. 23, 2004; 69 FR 76351, Dec. 20, 2004; 71 FR 57366, Sept. 28, 2006; 75 FR 53132, Aug. 30, 2010; 80 FR 38297, 38311, July 2, 2015; 85 FR 62488, Oct. 2, 2020; 86 FR 3681, Jan. 14, 2021; 86 FR 61022, Nov. 4, 2021; 90 FR 41877, Aug. 27, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2012 · leading case: Alamo Travel Group, LP v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alamo Travel Group, LP v. United States (2012) uscfc “48 C.F.R. § 12.203 (2011). As the government points out, see Def.”

Dubinsky v. United States (1999) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 12.203 (emphasis added); see also id.”

Candle Corp. v. United States (1998) uscfc “48 C.F.R. § 12.203 (1997). . Since MER 10 is capable of only one reasonable interpretation — that it requires the capability to edit message contents — defendant's contention that the requirement was patently ambiguous is rejected.”

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.