C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES › PART 15—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION › Subpart 15.3—Source Selection

48 C.F.R. § 15.308

15.308 Source selection decision.

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

The source selection authority's (SSA) decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment. The source selection decision shall be documented, and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. Although the rationale for the selection decision must be documented, that documentation need not quantify the tradeoffs that led to the decision.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 70 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 70 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 7× “]” (emphasis omitted)); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.308 (“The Source Selection Authority’s (SSA) decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.”
Glenn Def. Marine (Asia), PTE Ltd. v. States, 105 Fed. Cl. 541 (Fed. Cl. 2012). · cites it 6× “Describing the documentation needed for a best value trade-off analysis, 48 C.F.R. § 15.308 states: The source selection authority’s (SSA) decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.”
FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 359 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 4× “48 C.F.R. § 15.308 . The language of that section applies to the decision of the SSA, but in this case the SSA documented her best-value tradeoff decision by adopting the report of the SSEB.”
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 759 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 6× “]”) with 48 C.F.R. § 15.308 (“the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others”).”
One Largo Metro, Llc v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 39 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 6× “48 C.F.R. § 15.308 (current through Feb. 7, 2013).”
Caddell Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 49 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 3× “The source selection decision shall be documented, and the documentation shall include the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the SSA, including benefits associated with additional costs. Although the rationale for the selection decision must…”
Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “308, 48 C.F.R. § 15.308 (2001). JWK II, 279 F.”
Tech Sys., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 228 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 2× “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 “relied on by the SSA” 48 C.F.R.…”
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 269 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 3× “”) (emphasis added); AR 265 (RFP § M.8) (“Once the technical proposals have been evaluated and [the] consensus adjectival and confidence ratings are assigned, the rated technical proposals shall then be compared to the price analysis and incentive plan for each proposal, to…”
Park Tower Mgmt., Ltd. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 548 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 3× “at 2 ; see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.308 . 24 The RFQ, however, does not address the issue of shared or common equipment and all evaluation factors must be stated in the Solicitation.”
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 406 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 48 C.F.R. § 15.308 (“While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment.”
Fort Carson Support Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.308 (2005). The record contains an adequate, rational basis for the award to KIRA, and this ground for protest is accordingly denied.”
Show all 38 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.