48 C.F.R. § 6.001

6.001 Applicability.

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

This part applies to all acquisitions except—

(a) Contracts awarded using the simplified acquisition procedures of part 13 (but see 13.501 for requirements pertaining to sole source acquisitions of commercial products or commercial services under subpart 13.5).

(b) Contracts awarded using contracting procedures (other than those addressed in this part) that are expressly authorized by statute;

(c) Contract modifications, that are within the scope of the contract, including the exercise of priced options that were evaluated as part of the original competition (see 17.207(f));

(d) Orders placed under requirements contracts or definite-quantity contracts;

(e) Orders placed under indefinite-quantity contracts that were entered into pursuant to this part when—

(1) The contract was awarded under subpart 6.1 or 6.2 and all responsible sources were realistically permitted to compete for the requirements contained in the order; or

(2) The contract was awarded under subpart 6.3 and the required justification and approval adequately covers the requirements contained in the order; or

(f) Orders placed against task order and delivery order contracts entered into pursuant to subpart 16.5.

[50 FR 52431, Dec. 23, 1985, as amended at 55 FR 52790, Dec. 21, 1990; 60 FR 34747, July 3, 1995; 60 FR 49725, Sept. 26, 1995; 62 FR 263, Jan. 2, 1997; 62 FR 64917, Dec. 9, 1997; 84 FR 19842, May 6, 2019; 86 FR 61020, Nov. 4, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1986–2001 · leading case: Corel Corp. v. United States, 165 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Corel Corp. v. United States, 165 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2001). · cites it 2× “at § 253j(a)(2); see also 48 C.F.R. § 6.001 (f) (exempting from CICA and FAR’s open competition requirements “[o]rders placed against task order and delivery order contracts entered into pursuant to subpart 16.”

United States v. Advance Tool Co., 902 F. Supp. 1011 (W.D. Mo. 1995). “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.001 (a). The Court finds that there were two possible ways for McGillivray to have legitimately filled the purchase orders which he received from GSA.”

Cassidy Cleaning, Inc. v. United States, 10 Cl. Ct. 317 (Ct. Cl. 1986). “48 C.F.R. § 6.001 (b) (1986). Thus, neither the Competition in Contracting Act nor the Small Business Act requires a more elaborate competitive scheme than was practiced here.”

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.