48 C.F.R. § 14.407
14.407 Mistakes in bids.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1984–2012 · leading case: James Giesler and Luke Coniglio (Doing Business as Central Park Company) v. United States, Defendant-Cross
James Giesler and Luke Coniglio (Doing Business as Central Park Company) v. United States, Defendant-Cross (2000)
“See 48 C.F.R. § 14.407 (duty to examine bids); 48 C.”
Will H. Hall & Son, Inc. v. United States (2002)
“407-3(g); (3) it failed to specifically request additional information identified in 48 C.F.R. 14.407(g); (4) the DOL failed to submit plaintiffs request for an upward correction to a higher authority, and therefore the contracting officer rendered the agency’s determination in…”
Advance Construction Services, Inc. v. United States (2002)
“§ 3555 (d) (1994), which authorizes the GAO to “verify assertions made by parties in protests,” by planning to conduct videotaped witness interrogations of Advance’s current and former employees; (2) violated 48 C.F.R. § 14.407 (2000) and Engineer Federal Acquisition Regulation…”
ECDC Environmental, L.C. v. United States (1998)
“Determining that plaintiffs bid is responsive, this court further decides that plaintiff should have been allowed to correct the mistake in its bid pursuant to the mistake-in-bid procedures set out in 48 C.F.R. § 14.407 (1997) (FAR 14.407). Arguendo, to the extent that…”
Information International Associates, Inc. v. United States (2006)
“, Tab 2 at 1; see also 48 CFR §§ 14.407 ,15.508. In the September 4, 2003 letter, the CO surmised that Plaintiff: *198 reduced its bid in the final proposal recision by 4.”
Virgin Islands Paving, Inc. v. United States (2012)
“48 C.F.R. § 14.407 ~3(g)(5) (emphasis added).”
Domagala v. United States (1993)
“First, under acquisition regulation 48 C.F.R. § 14.407 -l(a), a contracting officer may only award a contract in sealed bidding procurement “by written notice.”
Implementation of the Bid Protest Provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act (1984)
“See 48 C.F.R. § 14.407 8(b)(4). Executive agencies may continue to comply with these and other applicable regulations.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 14.407(g) — 1 case
Will H. Hall & Son, Inc. v. United States (2002)
“407-3(g); (3) it failed to specifically request additional information identified in 48 C.F.R. 14.407(g); (4) the DOL failed to submit plaintiffs request for an upward correction to a higher authority, and therefore the contracting officer rendered the agency’s determination in…”
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.