48 C.F.R. § 19.805

19.805 Competitive 8(a).

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2005–2013 · leading case: Advanced Am. Constr., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 205 (Fed. Cl. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Advanced Am. Constr., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 205 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 3× “48 C.F.R. § 19.805 -l(a). Defendant explains that FAR 19.”

Assessment & Training Solutions Consulting Corp. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 722 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 3× “506 (2010); 48 C.F.R. § 19.805 -l(b)(l) (2009). On October 2, 2009, the SBA representative responded by e-mailing to the Contracting Officer the name of another 8(a) company, CSBS, that had expressed an interest in providing the requested services in response to the SBA…”

Suulutaaq, Inc. v. Williams, 782 F. Supp. 2d 795 (D. Alaska 2010). “48 C.F.R. § 19.805 — 1(b)(2); see also 13 C.”

White Hawk Grp., Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 669 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “48 C.F.R. § 19.805 — 2(b)(2) (emphasis added).”

Hursh v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 136 F. App'x 355 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “The arbitrator held Hursh responsible for his conduct, but sustained only two of the specifications: improper modification of contract, for using letters to change the contract at issue without authority; and split procurements under 48 C.F.R. § 19.805 -l(c), for using two…”

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.