48 C.F.R. § 15.603

15.603 General.

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

(a) Unsolicited proposals allow unique and innovative ideas or approaches that have been developed outside the Government to be made available to Government agencies for use in accomplishment of their missions. Unsolicited proposals are offered with the intent that the Government will enter into a contract with the offeror for research and development or other efforts supporting the Government mission, and often represent a substantial investment of time and effort by the offeror.

(b) Advertising material, commercial product or commercial service offers, or contributions, as defined in 15.601, or routine correspondence on technical issues, are not unsolicited proposals.

(1) Be innovative and unique;

(2) Be independently originated and developed by the offeror;

(3) Be prepared without Government supervision, endorsement, direction, or direct Government involvement;

(4) Include sufficient detail to permit a determination that Government support could be worthwhile and the proposed work could benefit the agency's research and development or other mission responsibilities;

(5) Not be an advance proposal for a known agency requirement that can be acquired by competitive methods; and

(6) Not address a previously published agency requirement.

(d) Unsolicited proposals in response to a publicized general statement of agency needs are considered to be independently originated.

(e) Agencies must evaluate unsolicited proposals for energy savings performance contracts in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR 436.33(b).

[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 66 FR 65352, Dec. 18, 2002; 69 FR 17769, Apr. 5, 2004, 86 FR 61027, Nov. 4, 2021; 89 FR 30238, Apr. 22, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2016 · leading case: Diaz v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Diaz v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 664 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “48 C.F.R § 15.603(c). The court notes that, FAR Subpart 15.”

Aero Corp., S.A. v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 739 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “, accorded the proposals disparate treatment, in violation of 48 C.F.R. § 15.603 (1996) (FAR 15.603). Finally, plaintiff charges that defendant’s evaluators violated applicable regulations in failing to consider the entirety of plaintiffs proposal during the review process.”

— 48 C.F.R. § 15.603(c) — 1 case

Diaz v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 664 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “48 C.F.R § 15.603(c). The court notes that, FAR Subpart 15.”

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.