48 C.F.R. § 15.001
15.001 Definitions.
As used in this part—
Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.
Proposal modification is a change made to a proposal before the solicitation closing date and time, or made in response to an amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award.
Proposal revision is a change to a proposal made after the solicitation closing date, at the request of or as allowed by a contracting officer, as the result of negotiations.
Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A “significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case: Tech Sys., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 228 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
Tech Sys., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 228 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “The Coast Guard used the FAR definition of a “deficiency,” 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 , which was paraphrased in the SSP as “[a] material failure of the proposal to meet a requirement or combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance…”
Labat-Anderson Inc. v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 . (AR at 837, 991.) The two major aspects of the deficiency relate to LABAT’s failure to adequately explain the bases for adjustments made to the INS-supplied workload data to derive components of its technical estimating model.”
Enhanced Vets. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 565 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “The SSP mirrored the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), see 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 , in defining key rating terms.”
Sys. Dynamics Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 499 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “” 48 C.F.R. 15.001. A "significant weakness” is defined as "a flaw in the submission that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.”
Structural Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 735 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “indicate to, or discuss with, each offeror still being considered for award, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse past performance information_” 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 in turn defines the terms “deficiency” and “significant weakness” as follows: Deficiency is a material…”
Fort Carson Support Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “F(l) and (3), AR Tab 34 at 3-4 with 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 . "Strength” was defined as "[a]n aspect of a proposal that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance or that represents a significant benefit to the Government.”
Res Rei Dev., Inc. v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 535 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “Gossage was described as “a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance,” AR at 1441, mirroring the definition of a “significant weakness,” see 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 . By the time the SSEB finalized its initial evaluation report and presented this…”
USfalcon, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 436 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “See 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 . . Even though no revisions to Sample Task responses were contemplated, see AR at 119, 7003, a “Susceptible to Being Made Acceptable” rating could have served a purpose — to accommodate the possibility that the agency would change its mind and allow…”
Chenega Mgmt., LLC v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 556 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “See 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 (“‘Deficiency’ is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.”
Acc Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 663 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “The definitions of weakness and deficiency appear in the FAR, 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 , which is incorporated into the solicitation by section 00116.”
Interspiro, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” See also 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 . Thus, MSA argues, life cycle costs would not be evaluated under proposal risk.”
Precision Asset Mgmt. Corp. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.001 (2015). The solicitation defines “adverse past/present performance information” as “information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.”
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.