(a) When, either before or after receipt of proposals, the Government changes its requirements or terms and conditions, the contracting officer shall amend the solicitation.
(b) Amendments issued before the established time and date for receipt of proposals shall be issued to all parties receiving the solicitation.
(c) Amendments issued after the established time and date for receipt of proposals shall be issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition.
(d) If a proposal of interest to the Government involves a departure from the stated requirements, the contracting officer shall amend the solicitation, provided this can be done without revealing to the other offerors the alternate solution proposed or any other information that is entitled to protection (see 15.207(b) and 15.306(e)).
(e) If, in the judgment of the contracting officer, based on market research or otherwise, an amendment proposed for issuance after offers have been received is so substantial as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have anticipated, so that additional sources likely would have submitted offers had the substance of the amendment been known to them, the contracting officer shall cancel the original solicitation and issue a new one, regardless of the stage of the acquisition.
(f) Oral notices may be used when time is of the essence. The contracting officer shall document the contract file and formalize the notice with an amendment (see subpart 4.5, Electronic Commerce in Contracting).
(g) At a minimum, the following information should be included in each amendment:
(1) Name and address of issuing activity.
(2) Solicitation number and date.
(3) Amendment number and date.
(4) Number of pages.
(5) Description of the change being made.
(6) Government point of contact and phone number (and electronic or facsimile address, if appropriate).
(7) Revision to solicitation closing date, if applicable.
Notes of Decisions
Mantech Telecomm. & Info. Sys. Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 57 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
· cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 15.206 (d). Plaintiff argues that this provision is inapplicable because the government does not intend to modify the stated requirements, but • instead only to clarify them.”
Allied Materials & Equip. Co. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 448 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 6× “§ 253 and 48 CFR § 15.206 .” Compl. 3. Count II of plaintiffs complaint alleges a violation of DLA’s implied duty of “good faith and fair dealing.”
Elec. Data Sys., LLC v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 416 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
· cites it 3× “It asserts that, in accepting the BAE’s proposal, Treasury violated 48 C.F.R. § 15.206 (a), by failing to amend the RFP to reflect what plaintiff contends were modifications in the requirements associated with the pricing of CLIN 006.”
Comint Sys. Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 15.206 (a). However, the government must cancel the solicitation and issue a new one if “in the judgment of the contracting officer .”
Candle Corp. v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 658 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
· cites it 3× “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.206 (a) (1997). Similarly, “[i]f a proposal of interest to the Government involves a departure from the stated requirements, the contracting officer shall amend the solicitation, provided this can be done without revealing to the other offerors the alternate…”
Metro. Van & Storage, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 232 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
· cites it 2× “After determining that Guardian again was the low priced, technically acceptable offeror, with acceptable past performance, SDDC for the second time awarded the West Coast Contract to Guardian.”
Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 163 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Elsewhere, 48 C.F.R. § 15.206 (d) provides that "[i]f a proposal of interest to the [gjovernment involves a departure from the stated requirements, the contracting officer shall amend the solicitation, provided this can be done without revealing to the other offerors the…”
Treadwell Corp. v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. 371 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Reply at 26; 48 C.F.R. § 15.206 . To support this claim, Treadwell notes that FAR 15.”
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
“Rodgers stating that NIDDK’s needs have changed is sufficient to establish the rationality of the decision, since as its director “he would obviously possess knowledge about the agency and its employees.” Def.’s Cancel’n Br.”
USfalcon, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 436 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
“220, 224-25 (2005); 48 C.F.R. § 15.206 . . One of the Sample Task evaluators suggested this, in a declaration submitted in the GAO proceeding.”
L-3 Commc'ns Eotech, Inc. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 643 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“206(e), 48 C.F.R. § 15.206 (e) (2007). The Army characterized Amendment 2 as providing merely a “clarification” of the Endurance-Live Fire Essential Criteria benchmark, and a correction of a “typographical error” in the Height Above Bore Essential Criteria benchmark.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 15.206(c) — 1 case
Elec. Data Sys., LLC v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 416 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
“It asserts that, in accepting the BAE’s proposal, Treasury violated 48 C.F.R. § 15.206 (a), by failing to amend the RFP to reflect what plaintiff contends were modifications in the requirements associated with the pricing of CLIN 006.”
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.