48 C.F.R. § 19.602
19.602 Procedures.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2023 · leading case: CSE Constr. Co. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 230 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
CSE Constr. Co. v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 230 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “5 (e)(l)(2001); 48 C.F.R. § 19.602 -l(c) (2001). FAR 19.602-2(a), cited by the GAO in R.”
Com. Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 133 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “See 48 C.F.R. § 19.602 — l(a)(2)(ii) (SBA need not be involved in a contractor's suspension).”
S.K.J. & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “602-1(a) (codified at 48 C.F.R. § 19.602 -l(a) (2004)). Plaintiffs state that SKJ submitted the lowest bid but that HHS made the decision to award the bid to another bidder “absent any rational and reasonable basis” and that HHS failed to follow its own bid guidelines by…”
Celtech, Inc. v. United States, 24 Cl. Ct. 269 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “602-4 (c); see also 48 C.F.R. §§ 19.602 -l(a)(l), 19.602-2(c)(1).”
Com. Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 967 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997). “48 C.F.R. § 19.602 -l(a)(2)(ii). a. Federal acquisition regulation claim relating to cancellation The parties disagree about whether GSA’s actions in cancelling the contracts were governed by the federal acquisition regulation concerning continuation of contracts, 48 C.”
J.E. McAmis, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). “However, plaintiff has not demonstrated why it interpreted the ProjNet-bid inquires as a document that was used by the Agency in its responsibility determination, so that it would fall within the gambit of 48 C.F.R. § 19.602 - - 12 - 1(c)(2)(vi). See Pl.”
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.