48 C.F.R. § 19.502
19.502 Setting aside acquisitions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 2007–2014 · leading case: MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “202—l(e)(l)(iii)” applies to FSS orders); see also 48 C.F.R. § 19.502 -l(b). Thus, if the Rule of Two were relevant only at that point in the procurement process, use of that contract vehicle would allow agencies to avoid following the policies of the Small Business Act.”
Global Comput. Enter., Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “at *7 (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 19.502 — 2(b)), and that the Army’s purchasing of the services at issue by contract with appropriated funds constituted an acquisition, id.”
McKing Consulting Corp. v. United States, 78 Fed. Cl. 715 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “48 C.F.R. § 19.502 — 2(b). For these reasons, the Court finds HRSA’s decision to make the Solicitation a small business set-aside to be rational.”
Adams & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 741 F.3d 102 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “48 C.F.R. § 19.502 — 1(a)(1)—(2) (emphases added).”
Dynamic Educ. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 306 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “48 C.F.R. § 19.502 -l(a) (emphasis added).”
Kingdomware Tech., Inc. v. United States, 754 F.3d 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “This exemption does not affect the VA’s obligation under 48 C.F.R. § 19.502 -l(a) otherwise to set aside contracts for competition among small businesses.”
Adams & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 340 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “48 C.F.R. § 19.502 -l(a) (emphasis added).”
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.