48 C.F.R. § 6.302
6.302 Circumstances permitting other than full and open competition.
The following statutory authorities (including applications and limitations) permit contracting without providing for full and open competition. Requirements for justifications to support the use of these authorities are in 6.303.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2000–2020 · leading case: Infrastructure Def. Tech., LLC v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 375 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
Infrastructure Def. Tech., LLC v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 375 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “Also, the parties did not address 48 C.F.R. § 6.302 -l(c) concerning use of a brand name description.”
Corel Corp. v. United States, 165 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.D.C. 2001). “” 48 C.F.R. § 6.302 -l(c) (1999). Before an agency can engage in a “sole source” or “brand-name only” procurement, the agency’s contracting officer must satisfy a series of requirements justifying and authorizing the use of noncompetitive procedures.”
Nish v. Cohen, 95 F. Supp. 2d 497 (E.D. Va. 2000). “The operative portion of the FAR, however, makes it clear that the list under 48 C.F.R. § 6.302 — 5(b) is not exhaustive through its use of the term “such as the following.”
Skc, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “See 48 C.F.R. § 6.302 - 5(a), (b)(4). Where an agency seeks to secure procurement contracts from participants in the Section 8(a) Program, it must first submit an “offering letter” to the SBA containing, inter alia, information on the work to be performed, the value and length…”
Ssi Tech., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). “§ 2304(c)(2) (also codified at 48 C.F.R. § 6.302 - 2(a)(2)). The FAR limits the use of the “unusual and compelling urgency” exception in noncompetitive procurements by requiring the agency to support the award by a written justification and approval and to “request offers from…”
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.