48 C.F.R. § 22.1103

22.1103 Policy, procedures, and solicitation provision.

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

All professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed $900,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees. This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee compensation may be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an award.

[77 FR 75776, Dec. 21, 2012, as amended at 80 FR 38298, July 2, 2015; 85 FR 62489, Oct. 2, 2020; 90 FR 41879, Aug. 27, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: Crassociates, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 357 (Fed. Cl. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Crassociates, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 357 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 2× “3d at 1579 (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 22.1103 ); see also K-Mar Indus.”

Statistica, Inc. v. Warren G. Christopher, Sec'y of State, & the Orkand Corp., Intervenor, 102 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “” 48 C.F.R. § 22.1103 . Because the contracting officer had decided that the contract would not involve meaningful numbers of professional employees, he did not include the.”

Crassociates, Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 698 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “3d at 1579 (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 22.1103 ); see also K-Mar Indus.”

K-Mar Indus., Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 20 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “” 48 C.F.R. § 22.1103 (2009). Neither party disputes that the value of the contract exceeded $550,000.”

Digiflight, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). · cites it 3× “See 48 C.F.R. § 22.1103 . FAR § 52.222-46 only applies to contracts that meet the standards of FAR § 22.”

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.