48 C.F.R. § 15.101
15.101 Best value continuum.
An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary. For example, in acquisitions where the requirement is clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, cost or price may play a dominant role in source selection. The less definitive the requirement, the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1999–2018 · leading case: Dismas Charities, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 191 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
Dismas Charities, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 191 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “contract to B annum was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law and that Dismas was prejudiced by BOP’s actions for several reasons: (1) BOP disparately and unequally downgraded Dis-mas’s Technical and Management scores; (2) BOP’s re-scoring had the…”
Universal Marine Co., K.S.C. v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 240 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “101-1 , and the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (“LPTA”), pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 15.101-2 . The April 24, 2014 RFP was a LPTA selection.”
Wackenhut Servs., Inc. v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 273 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “48 C.F.R. § 15.101 . . CIS is a subsidiary of Akal Security, Inc.”
Lawson Env't Servs., LLC v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 233 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “AR 75; 48 C.F.R. § 15.101 -’ 2(b)(1) (2009). 5 EPA Reasonably Reevaluated Coastal-En-vlroworks’ Proposal Plaintiff challenges EPA’s decision to reevaluate Coastal-Enviroworks’ proposal after Lawson’s agency-level protest was sustained, claiming that EPA should have disqualified…”
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 269 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “See 48 C.F.R. § 15.101 ("In different types of acquisitions, the relative importance of cost or price may vary.”
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 759 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “The less definitive the requirement, *789 the more development work required, or the greater the performance risk, the more technical or past performance considerations may play a dominant role in source selection.”
Off. Depot, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 517 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “Compare AR at 168,170, 2221-22, 2235 with 48 C.F.R. §§ 15.101 , 15.101-1, 15.308 (2009).”
ITT Fed. Servs. Corp. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 174 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “We begin with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), 48 C.F.R. § 15.101 (1998), which provides: An agency can obtain best value in negotiated acquisitions by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches.”
Indus. Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 318 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file____ 48 C.F.R. § 15.101 -l(c). See § 15.101; § 15.”
Constellation West, Inc. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 505 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “” (citing 48 C.F.R. § 15.101 — 1(b)(1); 48 C.F.R. § 15.”
Maxon Eng'g Servs., Inc. v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 5 T.C.A. 453 (1999). “48 C.F.R. 15.101. ” De la misma forma, el “Competitive in Contracting Act" (C.”
Gen. Dynamics Mission Sys., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “”), with 48 C.F.R. § 15.101 - 1 (“This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.”
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.