48 C.F.R. § 33.210
33.210 Contracting officer's authority.
Except as provided in this section, contracting officers are authorized, within any specific limitations of their warrants, to decide or resolve all claims arising under or relating to a contract subject to the Disputes statute. In accordance with agency policies and 33.214, contracting officers are authorized to use ADR procedures to resolve claims. The authority to decide or resolve claims does not extend to—
(a) A claim or dispute for penalties or forfeitures prescribed by statute or regulation that another Federal agency is specifically authorized to administer, settle, or determine; or
(b) The settlement, compromise, payment or adjustment of any claim involving fraud.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2022 · leading case: Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States
Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States (1999)
“§ 605 (a); 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 . Even if negotiations were commenced, the CO believed he was powerless to enter into a settlement with Medina.”
Hanover Insurance Company (The) v. United States (2017)
“§ 605 (a); accord 48 C.F.R. 33.210(b) (2012) (“The authority [of contracting officers] to decide or resolve claims does not extend to .”
United States v. United Technologies Corp. (2010)
“See 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 . Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the government should have brought its common law claims before the Board.”
Digital Technologies, Inc. v. United States (2009)
“” 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 (Oct. 1, 2008). DTI is not challenging the issuance or proposed issuance of a task order, but seeks monetary damages based on an alleged breach of specific contractual language on ordering provisions in its ID/IQ contract with the government.”
United States v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2014)
“” 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 . In fact, only the Attorney General is authorized to settle FCA claims.”
Aey, Inc. v. United States (2014)
“”); see also 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 ("The authority [of a contracting officer] to decide or resolve claims does not extend to .”
Sarang Corp. v. United States (2007)
“48 C.F.R. § 33.210 . . Plaintiff requests that the court treat the initial Complaint as incorporated into the Amended Complaint, as “it was not [Plaintiff’s] intent to have the [A]mended [C]omplaint supersede the [initial] [C]ompIaint.”
Edwards v. United States (1991)
“Plaintiffs cite 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 , a provision governing a contracting officer’s authority pursuant to contracts, such as the lease agreement between the parties, which are governed by Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA).”
Newtech Research Systems LLC v. United States (2011)
“Citing 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 , plaintiff contends that both contracting officers lacked the authority to issue any final decisions because they were precluded from addressing or resolving claims involving fraud or bad faith.”
United States v. Dyncorp International, LLC (2017)
“” 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 ; see also United States ex rel.”
Intelligent Investments, Inc. v. United States (2022)
“In September 2012, the Corps informed Intelligent Investments that, un- der 48 C.F.R. § 33.210 (b), the Corps could not then negoti- ate or settle the matter because the contract was the subject of a fraud investigation.”
Fadlalla v. Dyncorp International LLC (2022)
“”); 48 C.F.R. 33.210 (2022) (instructing that GCOs’ authority “does not extend to .”
— 48 C.F.R. § 33.210(b) — 1 case
Hanover Insurance Company (The) v. United States (2017)
“§ 605 (a); accord 48 C.F.R. 33.210(b) (2012) (“The authority [of contracting officers] to decide or resolve claims does not extend to .”
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.