48 C.F.R. § 6.101
6.101 Policy.
(a) 10 U.S.C. 3201 and 41 U.S.C. 3301 require, with certain limited exceptions (see subparts 6.2 and 6.3), that contracting officers shall promote and provide for full and open competition in soliciting offers and awarding Government contracts.
(b) Contracting officers shall provide for full and open competition through use of the competitive procedure(s) contained in this subpart that are best suited to the circumstances of the contract action and consistent with the need to fulfill the Government's requirements efficiently (10 U.S.C. 3201 and 41 U.S.C. 3301).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Kingdomware Tech., Inc. v. United States, 754 F.3d 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Kingdomware Tech., Inc. v. United States, 754 F.3d 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.101 (b). The Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) exists as one of the tools for achievement of the overarching policy.”
Cincom Sys., Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 663 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “§§ 2304 (a)(1)(A), 2305(b), 2305(b)(4) (1994); 48 C.F.R. §§ 6.101 , 15.608(a), 15.610 (1996).”
Savantage Fin. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 700 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “101(b) requires that contracting officers use competitive procedures “that are best suited to the circumstances of the contract action and consistent with the need to fulfill the Government’s requirements efficiently.”
Mike Hooks, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 147 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “§ 2304 (a)(1)(A); 48 C.F.R. § 6.101 (b) (1997). In determining whether there are genuine issues of fact regarding this allegation, the court “should not substitute its judgment for that of the procuring agency and should intervene only when it is clear that the agency’s…”
CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 742 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” 48 C.F.R. 6.101(b). Restrictive provisions that are included in solicitations are allowed only “to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law.”
Allied Materials & Equip. Co. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 448 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “CICA states “that contracting officers shall promote and provide for full and open competition in soliciting and awarding Government contracts,” 48 C.F.R. § 6.101 (a), and that under 48 C.”
Phoenix Air Grp., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 90 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “” Phoenix also contends that the sole-source acquisition violates 48 C.F.R. § 6.101 (b) (1998) (“Contracting officers shall provide for full and open competition through use of the competitive procedure(s) contained in this subpart that are best suited to the circumstances of…”
Applications Rsch. Corp. v. Naval Air Dev. Ctr., 752 F. Supp. 660 (E.D. Pa. 1990). “48 C.F.R. § 6.101 (b). Contracting officers thus have the discretion to make multiple awards when the solicitation, as of the award date, does not prohibit such awards.”
Walding v. United States, 955 F. Supp. 2d 759 (W.D. Tex. 2013). “48 C.F.R. § 6.101 . As will be discussed, the general FAR do not apply to this cooperative agreement.”
Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc. v. Kelly, 69 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Mass. 1999). “§ 253 (a)(1); see also 48 C.F.R. § 6.101 . 1 A Broad Agency Announcement (“BAA”) may be a competitive procedure satisfying the requirements of CICA in limited circumstances.”
Black Hills Power & Light Co. v. Weinberger, 808 F.2d 665 (8th Cir. 1987). “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.101 (1985) (citing 10 U.S.C.”
West River Elec. Ass'n v. Black Hills Power & Light Co., 918 F.2d 713 (8th Cir. 1990). “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.101 (1985) (citing 10 U.S.C.”
— 48 C.F.R. § 6.101(b) — 1 case
CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 742 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” 48 C.F.R. 6.101(b). Restrictive provisions that are included in solicitations are allowed only “to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law.”
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.