48 C.F.R. § 15.607

15.607 Criteria for acceptance and negotiation of an unsolicited proposal.

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

(a) A favorable comprehensive evaluation of an unsolicited proposal does not, in itself, justify awarding a contract without providing for full and open competition. The agency point of contact shall return an unsolicited proposal to the offeror, citing reasons, when its substance—

(1) Is available to the Government without restriction from another source;

(2) Closely resembles a pending competitive acquisition requirement;

(3) Does not relate to the activity's mission; or

(4) Does not demonstrate an innovative and unique method, approach, or concept, or is otherwise not deemed a meritorious proposal.

(b) The contracting officer may commence negotiations on a sole source basis only when—

(1) An unsolicited proposal has received a favorable comprehensive evaluation;

(2) A justification and approval has been obtained (see 6.302-1(a)(2)(i) for research proposals or other appropriate provisions of subpart 6.3, and 6.303-2(c));

(3) The agency technical office sponsoring the contract furnishes the necessary funds; and

(4) The contracting officer has complied with the synopsis requirements of subpart 5.2.

[62 FR 51230, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 76 FR 14562, Mar. 16, 2011]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1994–1997 · leading case: Analytical & Rsch. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 34 (Fed. Cl. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Analytical & Rsch. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 34 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “610 (e)(4) (1995); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.607 (b) (1995). In this case, Mr.”

Aerolease Long Beach v. United States, 31 Fed. Cl. 342 (Fed. Cl. 1994). “-607, 48 C.F.R. § 15.607 (1992), refers consideration of minor informalities or irregularities in negotiated procurements to FAR 14.”

Strategic Analysis, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 939 F. Supp. 18 (D.D.C. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 2305 (b)(4)(A), and the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FARs”), 48 C.F.R. §§ 15.607 (a) and 15.610, by conducting “discussions” with MRI but not with SAI, and thereafter failing to request best and final offers (“BAFOs”) from all competitive offerors.”

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.