48 C.F.R. § 16.102

16.102 Policies.

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

(a) Contracts resulting from sealed bidding shall be firm-fixed-price contracts or fixed-price contracts with economic price adjustment.

(b) Contracts negotiated under part 15 may be of any type or combination of types that will promote the Government's interest, except as restricted in this part (see 10 U.S.C. 3321(a) and 41 U.S.C. 3901). Contract types not described in this regulation shall not be used, except as a deviation under subpart 1.4.

(c) The cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system of contracting shall not be used (see 10 U.S.C. 3322(a) and 41 U.S.C. 3905(a)). Prime contracts (including letter contracts) other than firm-fixed-price contracts shall, by an appropriate clause, prohibit cost- plus-a-percentage-of-cost subcontracts (see clauses prescribed in subpart 44.2 for cost-reimbursement contracts and subparts 16.2 and 16.4 for fixed-price contracts).

(d) No contract may be awarded before the execution of any determination and findings (D&F's) required by this part. Minimum requirements for the content of D&F's required by this part are specified in 1.704.

[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1741, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 79 FR 24202, Apr. 29, 2014; 87 FR 73898, Dec. 1, 2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2023 · leading case: PCL Constr. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 745 (Fed. Cl. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

PCL Constr. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 47 Fed. Cl. 745 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “48 C.F.R. §§ 16.102 (b), 16.104 (1990). As our courts have often noted, “[e]ffective contracting demands broad discretion.”

SSA Marine, Inc. v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 662 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “As Plaintiff maintains that the Contract is a CPFF contract and a contract that provides for a profit to be negotiated in the future, it is not inaccurate to label it a cost-plus-fixed-fee-plus-profit (“CPFFPP”) contract, as Defendant does. 9 Although the FAR may contemplate a…”

United States of Am. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (E.D. Wis. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 2306 (a); 48 C.F.R. § 16.102 (c); 48 C.F.R. § 52.244-2 .”

United States of Am. v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. (E.D. Wis. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 2306 (a); 48 C.F.R. § 16.102 (c); see also Lamb Decl.”

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.