C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES › PART 14—SEALED BIDDING › Subpart 14.3—Submission of Bids

48 C.F.R. § 14.301

14.301 Responsiveness of bids.

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

(a) To be considered for award, a bid must comply in all material respects with the invitation for bids. Such compliance enables bidders to stand on an equal footing and maintain the integrity of the sealed bidding system.

(b) Facsimile bids shall not be considered unless permitted by the solicitation (see 14.202-7).

(c) Bids should be filled out, executed, and submitted in accordance with the instructions in the invitation. If a bidder uses its own bid form or a letter to submit a bid, the bid may be considered only if (1) the bidder accepts all the terms and conditions of the invitation and (2) award on the bid would result in a binding contract with terms and conditions that do not vary from the terms and conditions of the invitation.

(d) Bids submitted by electronic commerce shall be considered only if the electronic commerce method was specifically stipulated or permitted by the solicitation.

[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1738, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 54 FR 48983, Nov. 28, 1989; 60 FR 34738, July 3, 1995; 81 FR 83098, Nov. 18, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1987–2017 · leading case: California Marine Cleaning, Inc. v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
California Marine Cleaning, Inc. v. United States (1998) uscfc · cites it 4× “§ 253b(c) (1994); 48 C.F.R. §§ 14.301 (a), 14.408-1(a). At least five bids are indisputably responsive.”
Blount, Inc. v. United States (1990) cc · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 14.301 (a); Essex Electro Engineers, Inc.”
Ulstein Maritime, Ltd. And Schottel of America, Inc. v. United States of America (1987) ca1 “The Navy determined that the bid by TMI met the formal requirements of the invitation for bids and thus was “responsive” within the meaning of 48 C.F.R. § 14.301 . Since the Navy had not previously dealt with TMI, the bid was referred *1054 to the Defense Contract Administration…”
Electronic Data System, LLC v. United States (2010) uscfc “See 48 C.F.R. § 14.301 ; 14.404 — 2(d)(2)-(3).”
Bean Dredging Corp. v. United States (1991) cc “48 C.F.R. § 14.301 (a) (1988). To be considered for an award a bid must comply in “all material respects” with the invitation for bids.”
Armour of America v. United States (2006) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 14.301 (a). The provision goes on to state, however, that “[s]ueh compliance enables bidders to stand on an equal footing and maintain the integrity of the sealed bidding system.”
Monument Realty LLC v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (2008) dcd “Moreover, 48 C.F.R. § 14.301 (1998) provides that “[t]o be considered for [an] award, a bid must comply in all material respects with the invitation for bids.”
KSEND v. United States (2005) uscfc “In fact, the solicitation clearly stated that failure to submit the transparencies would result in a bid being declared nonresponsive.”
YRT Services Corp. v. United States (1993) uscfc “48 C.F.R. § 14.301 (1991). Therefore, if the Park Service’s Phase II SOR had been a sealed bid procurement, then YRTSC’s failure to be responsive to Criteria 15 or 16 would have precluded further consideration of YRTSC’s proposal.”
Ryan Co. v. United States (1999) uscfc “As to responsiveness, 48 C.F.R. § 14.301 (1998), provides that “[t]o be considered for award, a bid must comply in all material respects with the invitation for bids.”
Honeywell, Inc. v. United States (1989) cc “” 48 C.F.R. § 14.301 (1987). “Any bid that fails to conform to the essential requirements of the solicitation shall be rejected.”
Excel Manufacturing, Ltd. v. United States (2013) uscfc “301, 48 C.F.R. § 14.301 (2012), and FAR 14.404-2, 48 C.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— 48 C.F.R. § 14.301(c) — 1 case
Government Services Corp. v. United States (2017) uscfc
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.