48 C.F.R. § 819.7005

819.7005 Contracting order of priority.

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

(a) In determining the acquisition strategy applicable to a procurement requirement not otherwise covered under 808.002, the contracting officer shall observe the order of contracting preferences in 38 U.S.C. 8127(h).

(b) Specifically, preferences for awarding contracts to small business concerns shall be applied in the following order of priority:

(1) Contracts awarded to small business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans with service-connected disabilities as provided in this subpart.

(2) Contracts to small business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans that are not covered by paragraph (b)(1) of this section as provided in this subpart.

(3) Contracts awarded pursuant to—

(i) Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a) as provided in FAR subpart 19.8; or

(ii) Section 31 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a) as provided in FAR subpart 19.13.

(4) Contracts awarded pursuant to any other small business set aside contracting preference, with due deference to the priority for awarding to women-owned small businesses as provided in FAR 19.203(b) through (e) and FAR subpart 19.15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2021 · leading case: Kingdomware Tech., Inc. v. United States, 754 F.3d 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kingdomware Tech., Inc. v. United States, 754 F.3d 923 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 6× “48 C.F.R. § 819.7005 (providing for SDVOSBs); § 819.”

Med Trends, Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 638 (Fed. Cl. 2011). · cites it 4× “48 C.F.R. § 819.7005 (a) (2010). Because MED Trends and at least one of the T4 contractors are SDVOSBs, plaintiff argues in the complaint that the work contemplated under the protested task order was required to be set aside for SDVOSBs.”

Land Shark Shredding, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). · cites it 4× “25 The exceptions referenced in 48 C.F.R. § 819.7005 for 48 C.F.R. § 819.”

Vet. Shredding, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). · cites it 4× “48 C.F.R. § 819.7005 (2019). The FAR sets out its own Rule of Two doctrine, almost identical to the one contained in the VAAR, which provides in relevant part: (b) To set aside an acquisition for competition restricted to service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns,…”

Land Shark Shredding, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). · cites it 3× “7005, 48 C.F.R. § 819.7005 (2017), which would appear to replace FAR 19.”

Vet. Shredding, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2021). “See 48 C.F.R. §§ 819.7005 (c), 19.1405(b)–(c).”

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.