48 C.F.R. § 15.608
15.608 Prohibitions.
(a) Government personnel shall not use any data, concept, idea, or other part of an unsolicited proposal as the basis, or part of the basis, for a solicitation or in negotiations with any other firm unless the offeror is notified of and agrees to the intended use. However, this prohibition does not preclude using any data, concept, or idea in the proposal that also is available from another source without restriction.
(b) Government personnel shall not disclose restrictively marked information (see 3.104 and 15.609) included in an unsolicited proposal. The disclosure of such information concerning trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, apparatus, and other matters, except as authorized by law, may result in criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1905.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases, 1989–2015 · leading case: Process Control Tech. v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 71 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
Process Control Tech. v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 71 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (b) (1995). In this matter, the responsibility for making the determination provided for in Section 15.”
Day & Zimmermann Servs., A Div. of Day & Zimmermann, Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 591 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “See 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (a)(2)(ii) (1996). 28 In this instance, the RFP notified bidders that: Past performance will be evaluated utilizing the information obtained from past performance records furnished with the proposal, information received in response to past performance…”
Analytical & Rsch. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 34 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant violated 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (1995) when it evaluated the offerors pursuant to unstated evaluation factors.”
Radva Corp. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 812 (Ct. Cl. 1989). “*821 Nor can RADVA escape summary judgment based on its allegation that the manner in which defendant cancelled the solicitation violated 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (b). That provision permits all proposals received in response to a solicitation to be rejected if “the agency head” makes…”
Labat-Anderson, Inc. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 806 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “” 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (a)(1) (1991). Unless otherwise stated, all further references to the FAR or 48 C.”
Westech Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 272 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “§ 253b(a) (2000); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (a) (requiring proposals to be evaluated “solely on the factors specified in the solicitation”).”
Allied Tech. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 125 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “Plaintiff also cites to 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (a), which states: Proposal evaluation is an assessment of both the proposal and the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the prospective contract.”
Latecoere Int'l, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 19 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1994). “Latec-oere points to 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (a) (1993), which provides that “[pjroposal evaluation is an assessment of both the proposal and the offeror’s ability (as conveyed by the proposal) to successfully accomplish the prospective contract.”
Cincom Sys., Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 663 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “This section can reasonably read in conjunction with 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (2)(ii) (1996), which states that "[pjast performance information may also be obtained from other sources known to the Government.”
United Int'l Investigative Servs., Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 312 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “In this regard, the agency must “evaluate sealed bids and competitive proposals and make an award based solely on the factors specified in the solicitation.”
Rotech Healthcare, Inc. v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 387 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “§ 3701 (a); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (a). Therefore, if an agency fails to comply with the terms of the solicitation, such failure may “constitute grounds for overturning the bid award.”
Precision Images, LLC v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 598 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “§ 253b(a); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.608 (a) (requiring that proposals be evaluated “solely on the factors specified in the solicitation”).”
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.