48 C.F.R. § 15.303

15.303 Responsibilities.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Agency heads are responsible for source selection. The contracting officer is designated as the source selection authority, unless the agency head appoints another individual for a particular acquisition or group of acquisitions.

(b) The source selection authority shall—

(1) Establish an evaluation team, tailored for the particular acquisition, that includes appropriate contracting, legal, logistics, technical, and other expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of offers;

(2) Approve the source selection strategy or acquisition plan, if applicable, before solicitation release;

(3) Ensure consistency among the solicitation requirements, notices to offerors, proposal preparation instructions, evaluation factors and subfactors, solicitation provisions or contract clauses, and data requirements;

(4) Ensure that proposals are evaluated based solely on the factors and subfactors contained in the solicitation (10 U.S.C. 3303(c) and 41 U.S.C. 3703(c));

(5) Consider the recommendations of advisory boards or panels (if any); and

(6) Select the source or sources whose proposal is the best value to the Government (10 U.S.C. 3303(c) and 41 U.S.C. 3703(c)).

(1) After release of a solicitation, serve as the focal point for inquiries from actual or prospective offerors;

(2) After receipt of proposals, control exchanges with offerors in accordance with 15.306; and

(3) Award the contract(s).

[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 79 FR 24201, Apr. 29, 2014; 87 FR 73897, Dec. 1, 2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Tech Systems, Inc. v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tech Systems, Inc. v. United States (2011) uscfc · cites it 4× “48 C.F.R. § 15.303 (b)(6). Although the source selection decision represents his “independent judgment,” the SSA “may use reports and analyses prepared by others” in reaching this judgment, and the FAR recognizes that the “business judgments and tradeoffs” of others may be…”

USfalcon, Inc. v. United States (2010) uscfc · cites it 4× “48 C.F.R. §§ 15.303 (b), 15.308. He must assemble an “evaluation team” which is “tailored for the particular acquisition” and possesses the “expertise to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of offers.”

Park Tower Management, Ltd. v. United States (2005) uscfc · cites it 6× “§ 253b(a) and 48 C.F.R. § 15.303 (b)(4)[.]” 18 Id. ¶ 34 ; see also id.”

PHT Supply Corp. v. United States (2006) uscfc · cites it 3× “§ 2305 and 48 C.F.R. § 15.303 Plaintiff argues first that the award to Airtronic violated 10 U.”

By Light Professional IT Services, Inc. v. United States (2017) uscfc · cites it 2× “Second, By Light alleges that the USACE “improperly introduced an unannounced criterion that descriptions of past projects performed as task orders under IDIQ contracts must include a task order number,” in violation of 48 C.F.R. § 15.303 (b)(4). Id. at 16-17 .”

Galen Medical Associates, Inc. v. United States, and Deborah Downing Md, Pllc (2004) cafc “Galen also alleges the VA violated 48 C.F.R. § 15.303 by not establishing a source selection strategy.”

Academy Facilities Management v. United States (2009) uscfc · cites it 2× “303(b), which states that: “The source selection authority shall — (3) [ejnsure consistency among the solicitation requirements, notices to offerors, proposal preparation instructions, evaluation factors and subfactors, solicitation provisions or contract clauses, and data…”

Mantech Telecommunications & Information Systems Corp. v. United States (2001) uscfc “14 Because the Army did not do this, plaintiff claims, it failed to evaluate the proposals based solely on the criteria specified in the Solicitation, as required by 10 U.”

Crassociates, Inc. v. United States (2010) uscfc “§ 2305 (a)(2)(A)-3(A); 48 C.F.R. §§ 15.303 (b), 15.305(a); see also Banknote Corp.”

FirstLine Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States (2011) uscfc “See 48 C.F.R. § 15.303 (b)(6). In discharging that responsibility, the SSA is required to conduct a tradeoff analysis of the competing proposals and must base its contract award decision on that analysis.”

Dismas Charities, Inc. v. United States (2004) uscfc “48 C.F.R. § 15.303 . FAR 15.304, entitled “Evaluation factors and significant subfactors,” provides that “all factors and significant subfactors that will affect contract award and their relative importance shall be stated clearly in the solicitation .”

Unified Architecture & Engineering, Inc. v. United States (2000) uscfc “See 48 C.F.R. § 15.303 (4), (6) (1998). The source selection decision must be documented and the documentation must include the rational for any business judgment or tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.