C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER C—CONTRACTING METHODS AND CONTRACT TYPES › PART 15—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION › Subpart 15.4—Contract Pricing

48 C.F.R. § 15.404

15.404 Proposal analysis.

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Academy Facilities Mgmt. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 441 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Academy Facilities Mgmt. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 441 (Fed. Cl. 2009). · cites it 7× “48 C.F.R. § 15.404 -l(g)(l) (emphasis added).”
DMS All-Star Jt. Venture v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 653 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 4× “404-l(d)(3), 48 C.F.R. § 15.404 -l(d)(3) (2008). AR at 1826-27.”
Avtel Servs., Inc. v. Unites States, 70 Fed. Cl. 173 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 8× “48 C.F.R. § 15.404 -l(a)(l) (2004). The various analysis techniques listed include price analysis, cost analysis, cost realism analysis, and technical analysis.”
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 759 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 6× “at 24 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 15.404 -l(a)) (a price realism analysis “ensure[s] that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable”); see also 48 C.”
UnitedHealth Military & Vets. Servs., LLC v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 529 (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 2× “48 C.F.R. § 15.404 — 1(a)(1) (2017). The parties do not dispute that the agency considered price reasonableness.”
Metro. Van & Storage, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 232 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 3× “180, 188 (2007) (“The CO [contracting officer] need not perform any technique of price analysis other than price competition unless the CO ‘determines that information on competitive proposed prices .”
First Enter. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 109 (Fed. Cl. 2004). · cites it 3× “” 23 48 C.F.R. § 15.404 — 1(d)(3). If the contracting officer chooses to do a cost-realism analysis in a fixed price contract, the contracting officer can only use the results in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations.”
Labat-Anderson Inc. v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 99 (Fed. Cl. 2001). · cites it 2× “For example, the RFQ provided that price proposals would be analyzed in accordance with techniques referenced in 48 C.F.R. § 15.404 (AR at 287), technical proposals would be rated in accordance with criteria defined by 48 C.”
Dyncorp Int'l, LLC v. United States, 10 F.4th 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “404 is codified at 48 C.F.R. § 15.404 . Case: 20-2041 Document: 99 Page: 6 Filed: 08/25/2021 6 DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v.”
Elec. Data Sys., LLC v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 416 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 2× “That is surely true of the method that establishes price reasonableness by comparing a given price to those received from competitors, see 48 C.F.R. § 15.404 — 1(b)(2)(i)—a method that the agency tried to employ here.”
Tech Sys., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 228 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “22 Plaintiff, however, does not point to evidence in the administrative record of quality concerns or a past experience of service shortfalls to establish the exceptional circumstances that could warrant the use of price realism analysis.”
Caddell Constr. Co. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 30 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “48 C.F.R. § 15.404 -l(a)(l) (2015). FAR 15.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
— 48 C.F.R. § 15.404(b)(2)(i) — 1 case
Global Dynamics, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017).
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.