(a) Only contracting officers acting within the scope of their authority are empowered to execute contract modifications on behalf of the Government. Other Government personnel shall not—
(1) Execute contract modifications;
(2) Act in such a manner as to cause the contractor to believe that they have authority to bind the Government; or
(3) Direct or encourage the contractor to perform work that should be the subject of a contract modification.
(b) Contract modifications, including changes that could be issued unilaterally, shall be priced before their execution if this can be done without adversely affecting the interest of the Government. If a significant cost increase could result from a contract modification and time does not permit negotiation of a price, at least a ceiling price shall be negotiated unless impractical.
[48 FR 42386, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 18915, Apr. 29, 1996; 61 FR 69298, Dec. 31, 1996; 74 FR 28431, June 15, 2009; 79 FR 24213, Apr. 29, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Winter v. Cath-dr/Balti Jt. Venture, 497 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “601 (a) (vesting agency heads with authority to contract for supplies and services and mandating that "[c]ontracts may be entered into and signed on behalf of the Government only by contracting officers"); 48 C.F.R. § 43.102 ("Only contracting officers acting within the scope of…”
JGB Enter., Inc. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 319 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 43.102 (a) (1999). Furthermore, at all times relevant to this action, contracting officers were permitted to address subcontractor assertions of non-payment.”
Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 970 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1997).
· cites it 2× “207 , 48 C.F.R. § 43.102 . (1997) Thus, plaintiff argues this is not a case under the CDA, but under the APA, and that OAO’s contract *6 should be terminated and ISN’s reinstated until Diane Crawford, the real CO, can make a decision pursuant to federal regulations.”
Green Mgmt. Corp. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 411 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
“Neither party contests that the individuals executing the March 3,1987 Memorandum of Negotiation and Memorandum of Understanding were competent parties.”
JGB Enter., Inc. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 20 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“” 48 C.F.R. § 43.102 (a) (2007) 5 . Thus, although CO Moore knew the purpose of the modification of the remittance address, the more significant question is whether, with that knowledge, she had the intention to benefit JGB.”
Vets. Tech. LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
“at 18 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 43.102 (a) (2015) (“Only contracting officers acting within the scope of their authority are empowered to execute contract modifications on behalf of the Government.”
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.