48 C.F.R. § 14.404
14.404 Rejection of bids.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1985–2005 · leading case: Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 148 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 148 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(a)(l) (1999). FAR 14.”
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. United States, 780 F.2d 74 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “404-l(a)(l), 48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(a)(l) (1984), provides: "Preservation of the integrity of the competitive bid system dictates that, after bids have been opened, award must be made to that responsible bidder who submitted the lowest responsive bid, unless there is a compelling…”
Nat'l Forge Co. v. The United States, 779 F.2d 665 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “The Claims Court found that the contracting officer did not abuse his discretion when he cancelled the solicitation, noting that he had a reasonable basis for concluding there was a compelling reason under the Federal Acquisition Regulations System, 48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(c)(l)…”
John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. v. The United States, 869 F.2d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “See 48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(a)(l) (1987) (requiring contracts to be awarded to lowest bidder, absent compelling contrary reasons).”
Overstreet Elec. Co. v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 728 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “" 48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(c)(6). . Plaintiff also alleges that the defendant's actions breached an implied-in-fact contractual obligation of the government to consider and treat all bids fairly.”
Arrowhead Metals, Ltd. v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 703 (Ct. Cl. 1985). “48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(a)(l) (1984). Given the discussion, supra, of the concerns as to the propriety and/or national interest factor of contracting out work that an overseeing House Subcommittee and oth *714 ers considered governmental function work, a compelling reason existed…”
First Enter. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 109 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(e)(1) (2004). When the agency head authorizes negotiations, thus canceling the original invitation for bids, the contracting officer may negotiate and make award without issuing a new solicitation provided that (1) the contracting officer gives notice and…”
Vanguard Sec. Inc. v. United States, 20 Cl. Ct. 90 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “404-l(a), (c), the Claims Court’s inquiry is restricted to “whether the contracting officer’s interpretation of, and later decision to cancel, the solicitation was unreasonable or an abuse of discretion under the requirements set forth in 48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(c).” National…”
Abel Converting, Inc. v. United States, 679 F. Supp. 1133 (D.D.C. 1988). “See 48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(a)(l) (1986). 11 Thus, Fort Howard objects to GSA’s announced intention to resolicit all thirty-three items referred to in solicitation number 7PRT-53157/K3/75B.”
Shields Enter., Inc. v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 615 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “egulations (FAR) state: (c) Invitations may be cancelled before award but after opening when, consis *636 tent with subparagraph (a)(1) above, the contracting officer determines in writing that— (1) Inadequate or ambiguous specifications were cited in the invitation; (2)…”
Manson Constraction Co. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 746 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “48 C.F.R. § 14.404 — l(c)(6) (2004) indicates that an invitation may be cancelled and all bids rejected before award if it is determined that "[a]ll otherwise acceptable bids received are at unreasonable prices.”
Bean Dredging Corp. v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 561 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “These flaws allegedly prevent the Corps from arguing that plaintiffs! estimate was itself unreasonable as a basis for rejecting all bids pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 14.404 -l(c)(6) (1988). That section provides for rejection and cancellation after bid opening when the agency…”
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.