48 C.F.R. § 52.223-2

52.223-2 Reporting of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts.

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

As prescribed in 23.109(c)(2), insert the following clause:

Reporting of Biobased Products Under Service and Construction Contracts (MAY 2024)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause—

Biobased product means a product determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to be a commercial product or industrial product (other than food or feed) that is composed, in whole or in significant part, of biological products, including renewable domestic agricultural materials and forestry materials, or that is an intermediate ingredient or feedstock. The term includes, with respect to forestry materials, forest products that meet biobased content requirements, notwithstanding the market share the product holds, the age of the product, or whether the market for the product is new or emerging. (7 U.S.C. 8101) (7 CFR 3201.2).

USDA-designated product category means a generic grouping of products that are or can be made with biobased materials—

(1) That are listed by USDA in a procurement guideline (7 CFR part 3201, subpart B); and

(2) For which USDA has provided purchasing recommendations (available at https://www.biopreferred.gov).

(b) The Contractor shall report to https://www.sam.gov, with a copy to the Contracting Officer, on the product types and dollar value of any biobased products in USDA-designated product categories purchased by the Contractor during the previous Government fiscal year, between October 1 and September 30; and

(c) Submit this report no later than—

(1) October 31 of each year during contract performance; and

(2) At the end of contract performance.

[89 FR 30248, Apr. 22, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2000–2003 · leading case: US Ex Rel. Holder v. Special Devices, Inc.
US Ex Rel. Holder v. Special Devices, Inc. (2003) cacd · cites it 2× “32) pursuant to 48 C.F.R. 52.223-2. Specifically, SDI agreed “to comply with all the requirements of section 114 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.”
P.R. Burke Corp. v. United States (2000) uscfc “See 48 C.F.R. § 52.223-2 (1994). The Government posits that without the trickling filter in operation, the effluent discharged from STP 2 would have exceeded the facility’s Clean Water Act (CWA) permit, and thus Burke’s interpretation would have disregarded the requirements of…”
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.