48 C.F.R. § 3.104-9

3.104-9 Contract clauses.

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

In solicitations and contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, other than those for commercial products or commercial services, insert the clauses at—

(a) 52.203-8, Cancellation, Rescission, and Recovery of Funds for Illegal or Improper Activity; and

(b) 52.203-10, Price or Fee Adjustment for Illegal or Improper Activity.

[67 FR 13059, Mar. 20, 2002, as amended at 86 FR 61019, Nov. 4, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1991–1998 · leading case: Southfork Sys., Inc. v. The United States, & State of Texas, Acting Through the Texas Comm'n for the Blind, 141 F.3d 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Southfork Sys., Inc. v. The United States, & State of Texas, Acting Through the Texas Comm'n for the Blind, 141 F.3d 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “This ■ warning was based upon 48 C.F.R. § 3.104-9 (b)(3)(i)(C) (1990), which stated in regard to the Certificate of Procurement Integrity that “[fjailure of a bidder to submit a signed certificate with its bid renders the bid nonresponsive.”

McMaster Constr., Inc. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 679 (Ct. Cl. 1991). · cites it 2× “The sole basis of the bid protest is McMaster’s challenge to the validity of 48 C.F.R. § 3.104-9 (b)(3)(i)(C) (1990) (hereafter, the “responsiveness regulation”).”

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.