Sealed bidding is a method of contracting that employs competitive bids, public opening of bids, and awards. The following steps are involved:
(a) Preparation of invitations for bids. Invitations must describe the requirements of the Government clearly, accurately, and completely. Unnecessarily restrictive specifications or requirements that might unduly limit the number of bidders are prohibited. The invitation includes all documents (whether attached or incorporated by reference) furnished prospective bidders for the purpose of bidding.
(b) Publicizing the invitation for bids. Invitations must be publicized through distribution to prospective bidders, posting in public places, and such other means as may be appropriate. Publicizing must occur a sufficient time before public opening of bids to enable prospective bidders to prepare and submit bids.
(c) Submission of bids. Bidders must submit sealed bids to be opened at the time and place stated in the solicitation for the public opening of bids.
(d) Evaluation of bids. Bids shall be evaluated without discussions.
(e) Contract award. After bids are publicly opened, an award will be made with reasonable promptness to that responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most advantageous to the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors included in the invitation.
[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1737, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985]
Notes of Decisions
Clark Const. Co., Inc. v. Pena, 930 F. Supp. 1470 (M.D. Ala. 1996).
· cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (a). Therefore, if the traffic control note regarding lane closures was so critical to the integrity of the bidding process, then the FHWA would have certainly corrected the problem long before it gave its approval.”
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
“48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (a) (2004). Defendant also cites several cases for the proposition that cancellation of a solicitation is proper when an agency’s requirements have been overstated.”
Redland Genstar, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 220 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (a). Both parties appear to agree that the abrasion test requirements chosen by the Corps restrict competition.”
Chas. H. Tompkins Co. v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 716 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (a). B. Merits Plaintiff and defendant, in this case, have taken one very short IFB specification and reached totally opposite conclusions as to the meaning of that provision.”
YRT Servs. Corp. v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 366 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (1991). Professors Cibinic and Nash explain some of the distinctions between negotiation and sealed bidding as follows: Negotiation differs significantly from sealed bidding.”
Clark Const. Co., Inc. v. Pena, 895 F. Supp. 1483 (M.D. Ala. 1995).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (a). If the traffic control note regarding lane closures was so critical to the integrity of the bidding process then the FHWA would have certainly corrected the problem long before it gave its approval.”
Blue Dot Energy Co. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
“§ 2305 (a)(1)(B)(ii); see also 48 C.F.R § 14.101(a) (“Unnecessarily restrictive specifications or requirements that might unduly limit the number of bidders are prohibited.”
Gen. Dynamics Mission Sys., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
· cites it 2× “2d at 1011 (“the bids materially differ only as to price”); see also 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (e) (requiring that “an award will be made with reasonable promptness to that responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most advantageous to the Government,…”
McKnight Constr. Co. v. Perry, 888 F. Supp. 1178 (S.D. Ga. 1994).
“17; See also 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (e). Further, in this ease the public interest is served by saving $119,-000.”
Dow Elec., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 688 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (d). Therefore, SLSDC was not obligated to participate in any discussions with Plaintiff once Plaintiffs bid was submitted.”
Searles v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
“Compare 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (defming the elements of sealed bidding) with 48 C.”
H&L Contracting LLC (A.S.B.C.A. 2025).
“002 (a)(1)(ii); see also 48 C.F.R. § 14.101 (a) (in sealed bidding, “[u]nnecessarily restrictive specifications or requirements that might unduly limit the number of bidders are prohibited.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 14.101(a) — 1 case
Blue Dot Energy Co. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
“§ 2305 (a)(1)(B)(ii); see also 48 C.F.R § 14.101(a) (“Unnecessarily restrictive specifications or requirements that might unduly limit the number of bidders are prohibited.”
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.