48 C.F.R. § 37.602

37.602 Performance work statement.

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

(a) A Performance work statement (PWS) may be prepared by the Government or result from a Statement of objectives (SOO) prepared by the Government where the offeror proposes the PWS.

(b) Agencies shall, to the maximum extent practicable—

(1) Describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either “how” the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided (see 11.002(a)(2) and 11.101);

(2) Enable assessment of work performance against measurable performance standards;

(3) Rely on the use of measurable performance standards and financial incentives in a competitive environment to encourage competitors to develop and institute innovative and cost-effective methods of performing the work.

(c) Offerors use the SOO to develop the PWS; however, the SOO does not become part of the contract. The SOO shall, at a minimum, include—

(1) Purpose;

(2) Scope or mission;

(3) Period and place of performance;

(4) Background;

(5) Performance objectives, i.e., required results; and

(6) Any operating constraints.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2009–2018 · leading case: Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Saleh v. Titan Corp., 580 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Because performance-based statements of work "describe the work in terms of the required results rather than either `how' the work is to be accomplished or the number of hours to be provided," 48 C.F.R. § 37.602 (b)(1), by definition, the military could not retain command…”

Am. K-9 Detection Servs., LLC & Hill Country Dog Ctr., Llc v. Latasha Freeman, 556 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. 2018). “2009) (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 37.602 (b)(1) ). One of those requirements was that these dogs would attack only when commanded or when given cause.”

Cheryl Harris v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., 724 F.3d 458 (3rd Cir. 2013). “3d at 10 (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 37.602 (b)(1)). “[B]y definition, the military [cannot] retain command authority nor operational control over contractors working on [this] basis and thus tort suits against such contractors [are] not [ ] preempted” under the *482…”

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.