48 C.F.R. § 49.001

49.001 Definitions.

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

As used in this part—

Other work means any current or scheduled work of the contractor, whether Government or commercial, other than work related to the terminated contract.

Plant clearance period, as used in this subpart, means the period beginning on the effective date of contract completion or termination and ending 90 days (or such longer period as may be agreed to) after receipt by the contracting officer of acceptable inventory schedules for each property classification. The final phase of the plant clearance period means that period after receipt of acceptable inventory schedules.

Settlement agreement means a written agreement in the form of a contract modification settling all or a severable portion of a settlement proposal.

Settlement proposal means a proposal for effecting settlement of a contract terminated in whole or in part, submitted by a contractor or subcontractor in the form, and supported by the data, required by this part. A settlement proposal is included within the generic meaning of the word claim under false claims acts (see 18 U.S.C. 287 and 31 U.S.C. 3729).

Unsettled contract change means any contract change or contract term for which a definitive modification is required but has not been executed.

[48 FR 42443, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 2666, Jan. 17, 1986; 66 FR 2134, Jan. 10, 2001; 67 FR 43514, June 27, 2002; 69 FR 17748, Apr. 5, 2004]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: Gulf Grp. Gen. Enter. Co. W.l.l., Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant, 114 Fed. Cl. 258 (Fed. Cl. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gulf Grp. Gen. Enter. Co. W.l.l., Plaintiff, v. United States, Defendant, 114 Fed. Cl. 258 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 3× “” (citing 48 C.F.R. § 49.001 (1995))); see also Rex Sys.”

Gordon R. England, Sec'y of the Navy v. The Swanson Grp., Inc., 353 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “001, 48 C.F.R. § 49.001 . 3 .Swanson’s request for an extension demonstrates an understanding that at that time, Swanson had not yet submitted a "claim” to the Navy: “It is my understanding that The Swanson Group has one year to fifteen months in which to initiate a claim based…”

James M. Ellett Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “Indeed, it is a proposal that Ellett contractually agreed to submit in the event of a convenience termination.”

Ryste & Ricas, Inc. v. Francis J. Harvey, Sec'y of the Army, 477 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “001, 48 C.F.R. § 49.001 . RRI asserted that, following the Board’s decision, it submitted a termination settlement proposal to the contracting officer on July 23, 2003.”

Gardner Mach. Corp. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 286 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “48 C.F.R. § 49.001 (1986). In view of the above described facts and authorities, this Court concludes that the settlement proposal/termination claim that the plaintiff submitted by cover letter dated April 12, 1984 on Standard Form 1436 was not a written claim submitted to the…”

Sigma Constr., Inc. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 13 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “” 48 C.F.R. § 49.001 ; 48 C.F.R. § 49.109-1 .”

Sperient Corp., Inc. v. United States, 113 Fed. Cl. 13 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “” 48 C.F.R. § 49.001 ; 48 C.F.R. § 49.109-1 .”

Globe Trailer Mfg., Inc. (A.S.B.C.A. 2021). “Because Globe did not break out a sum certain for the constructive change portion of the TSP II, there was not a determinable sum certain pertaining to the potential claim.”

Ryste & Ricas v. Harvey (Fed. Cir. 2007). “001, 48 C.F.R. § 49.001 . RRI asserted that, following the Board’s decision, it submitted a termination settlement proposal to the contracting officer on July 23, 2003.”

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.