48 C.F.R. § 52.215-14

52.215-14 Integrity of Unit Prices.

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

As prescribed in 15.408(f)(1), insert the following clause:

Integrity of Unit Prices (NOV 2021)

(a) Any proposal submitted for the negotiation of prices for items of supplies shall distribute costs within contracts on a basis that ensures that unit prices are in proportion to the items' base cost (e.g., manufacturing or acquisition costs). Any method of distributing costs to line items that distorts unit prices shall not be used. For example, distributing costs equally among line items is not acceptable except when there is little or no variation in base cost. Nothing in this paragraph requires submission of certified cost or pricing data not otherwise required by law or regulation.

(b) When requested by the Contracting Officer, the Offeror/Contractor shall also identify those supplies that it will not manufacture or to which it will not contribute significant value.

(c) The Contractor shall insert the substance of this clause, less paragraph (b) of this clause, in all subcontracts for other than: acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101 on the date of subcontract award; construction or architect-engineer services under FAR part 36; utility services under FAR part 41; services where supplies are not required; commercial products and commercial services; and petroleum products.

(End of clause)

Alternate I (OCT 1997). As prescribed in 15.408(f)(2), substitute the following paragraph (b) for paragraph (b) of the basic clause:

(b) The Offeror/Contractor shall also identify those supplies that it will not manufacture or to which it will not contribute significant value.

[62 FR 51263, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended at 75 FR 53151, Aug. 30, 2010; 85 FR 27094, May 6, 2020; 86 FR 61034, Nov. 4, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1997–1997 · leading case: Analytical & Rsch. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 34 (Fed. Cl. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Analytical & Rsch. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 34 (Fed. Cl. 1997). · cites it 3× “Finally, the defendant contends that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in not seeking a written clarification, pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 52.215-14 (1995), when it thought that a failure to satisfy the minimum experience requirements would simply result in a point reduction, because…”

Allied Tech. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 125 (Fed. Cl. 1997). · cites it 2× “215-14 (1996) into the solicitation by reference, as follows: *140 EXPLANATION TO PROSPECTIVE OFFERORS (APR 1984) Any prospective offeror desiring an explanation or interpretation of the solicitation, drawings, specifications, etc.”

Cincom Sys., Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 663 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “The solicitation incorporates, by reference, 48 C.F.R. § 52.215-14 (1984), which states: 33 Any prospective offeror desiring an explanation or interpretation of the solicitation, drawing, specification must request it in writing soon enough to allow a reply to reach all…”

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.