48 C.F.R. § 216.104
216.104 Factors in selecting contract type.
Contracting officers shall follow the principles and procedures in Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy memorandum dated April 1, 2016, entitled “Guidance on Using Incentive and Other Contract Types,” when selecting and negotiating the most appropriate contract type for a given procurement. See PGI 216.104.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2000–2009 · leading case: American Telephone and Telegraph Company and Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. United States
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. & Lucent Tech., Inc. v. United States, 307 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “In fact, the regulations also admonished: “When the use of cost and performance incentives is desirable and practicable, fixed price incentive .”
FFTF Restoration Co. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 226 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “” (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 216.104 (1) (1987))). The Federal Circuit in AT & T then held that, “[e]ven if the contracting officer abused his discretion by negotiating the .”
Info. Sciences Corp. v. United States, 85 Fed. Cl. 195 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “” 48 C.F.R. § 216.104 . The second, FAR 35.”
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 156 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “” 48 C.F.R. § 216.104 (1) (1987). But even if one could read these regulations as placing some limits upon a contracting officer’s exercise of discretion in the selection of contract type, the time to have raised such concerns was when the RDA contract was being negotiated, not…”
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.