C.F.R. » Title 48 » CHAPTER 1—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION › SUBCHAPTER H—CLAUSES AND FORMS › PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES › Subpart 52.2—Text of Provisions and Clauses

48 C.F.R. § 52.222-38

52.222-38 Compliance with Veterans' Employment Reporting Requirements.

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

As prescribed in 22.1310(c), insert the following provision:

Compliance With Veterans' Employment Reporting Requirements (FEB 2016)

By submission of its offer, the offeror represents that, if it is subject to the reporting requirements of 38 U.S.C. 4212(d) (i.e., if it has any contract containing Federal Acquisition Regulation clause 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans), it has filed the most recent VETS-4212 Report required by that clause.

(End of provision) [66 FR 53491, Oct. 22, 2001, as amended at 75 FR 60254, Sept. 29, 2010; 80 FR 75911, Dec. 4, 2015]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2009–2015 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 601 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States Ex Rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 601 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 5× “In turn, 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-38 provides that “[b]y submission of its offer, the offeror represents that, if it is subject to the reporting requirements [of VEVRAA] .”
United States Ex Rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 606 F. Supp. 2d 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). · cites it 10× “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-38 . During the period covered by the complaint, Schindler entered into hundreds of contracts with agencies of the federal government that were subject to VEVRAA and its various requirements.”
United States Ex Rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 437 F. App'x 13 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “As the district court put it, the “critical elements” of Kirk’s claim in this regard are that: “(1) Schindler obtained contracts (2) requiring an express certification pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-38 that Schindler had filed VETS-100 reports, and (3) Schindler had not actually…”
United States ex rel. Kirk v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 130 F. Supp. 3d 866 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 3× “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-38 (2001). Accordingly, “[n]o agency may obligate or expend funds appropriated for the agency” pursuant to 38 U.”
United States Ex Rel. Rosner v. WB/Stellar IP Owner, LLC, 739 F. Supp. 2d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). “2d at 462-63 ("The 'critical elements’ of Kirk's claim are: (1) Schindler obtained contracts (2) requiring an express certification pursuant to 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-38 that Schindler had filed VETS-100 reports, and (3) Schindler had not actually filed those reports.”
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.