Contracting officers shall—
(a) Purchase supplies and services from responsible sources at fair and reasonable prices. In establishing the reasonableness of the offered prices, the contracting officer—
(1) Shall obtain certified cost or pricing data when required by 15.403-4, along with data other than certified cost or pricing data as necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price; or
(2) When certified cost or pricing data are not required by 15.403-4, shall obtain data other than certified cost or pricing data as necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price, generally using the following order of preference in determining the type of data required:
(i) No additional data from the offeror, if the price is based on adequate price competition, except as provided by 15.403-3(b).
(ii) Data other than certified cost or pricing data such as—
(A) Data related to prices (e.g., established catalog or market prices, sales to non-governmental and governmental entities), relying first on data available within the Government; second, on data obtained from sources other than the offeror; and, if necessary, on data obtained from the offeror. When obtaining data from the offeror is necessary, unless an exception under 15.403-1(b)(1) or (2) applies, such data submitted by the offeror shall include, at a minimum, appropriate data on the prices at which the same or similar items have been sold previously, adequate for evaluating the reasonableness of the price.
(B) Cost data to the extent necessary for the contracting officer to determine a fair and reasonable price.
(3) Obtain the type and quantity of data necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price, but not more data than is necessary. Requesting unnecessary data can lead to increased proposal preparation costs, generally extend acquisition lead time, and consume additional contractor and Government resources. Use techniques such as, but not limited to, price analysis, cost analysis, and/or cost realism analysis to establish a fair and reasonable price. If a fair and reasonable price cannot be established by the contracting officer from the analyses of the data obtained or submitted to date, the contracting officer shall require the submission of additional data sufficient for the contracting officer to support the determination of the fair and reasonable price.
(b) Price each contract separately and independently and not—
(1) Use proposed price reductions under other contracts as an evaluation factor; or
(2) Consider losses or profits realized or anticipated under other contracts.
(c) Not include in a contract price any amount for a specified contingency to the extent that the contract provides for a price adjustment based upon the occurrence of that contingency.
[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 66 FR 2129, Jan. 10, 2001; 75 FR 53142, Aug. 30, 2010; 77 FR 204, Jan. 3, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 380 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 3× “46 *402 Finally, the Government’s argument that including the plant shutdown-related costs would violate the FAR misconstrues 48 C.F.R. § 15.402 (b)(1). What is prohibited is the use of “proposed price reductions under other contracts as an evaluation factor.”
United States ex rel. Thomas v. Siemens AG, 991 F. Supp. 2d 540 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
· cites it 3× “See 48 C.F.R. §§ 15.402 , 403-3, 404-l(a)-(d), 405, 406-J 77 After the parties submitted their summary judgment briefs, the government filed a declaration asserting that in direct delivery, multiple award contracts like the ones at issue, vendors are not required to give the…”
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Dalton, 974 F. Supp. 37 (D.D.C. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Circuit has yet to address the issue, district court precedent in this Circuit uniformly and firmly points to the conclusion that the financial/commercial information found in the Martin MariettaNAVAIR CASS contracts was “required” in the National Parks sense of the term by…”
Red River Comput. Co., Inc. v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 227 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“See 48 C.F.R. § 15.402 (a) (2014). The solicitation provides that the agency reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror.”
BAE Sys. Land & Armaments, L.P. v. Ibis Tek, LLC, 192 F. Supp. 3d 978 (D. Minnesota 2016).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 15.402 (a). To meet this requirement, contracting officers must obtain certified cost or pricing data from those with whom the government intends to enter into contracts.”
Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 803 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
“48 C.F.R. § 15.402 (b) (1991). . In Grumman I, the district court determined that judgment should be entered for plaintiff and “the case returned to the Army with the direction to terminate and resolicit the contract.”
United States v. McAusland, 979 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1992).
“48 C.F.R. § 15.402 (1991). Once the proposals are submitted, the agency performs its initial evaluation, with the cost and technical components being evaluated separately.”
Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition v. Iron Triangle, LLC (9th Cir. 2026).
· cites it 2× “IRON TRIANGLE, LLC The other federal regulation relevant here, 48 C.F.R. § 15.402 (a), similarly requires the Government to pay “reasonable prices” for contracted “supplies and services.”
Fcn, Inc. v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 365 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“See AR 143; 48 C.F.R. § 15.402 (a) (2014). II. Evaluation of FCN’s Proposal Evaluations of the Phase II proposals were initially prepared at the end of March 2014 by the Source Selection Evaluation Board *368 (“SSEB”).”
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.