(a) Purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, responsible prospective contractors only.
(b) No purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. In the absence of information clearly indicating that the prospective contractor is responsible, the contracting officer shall make a determination of nonresponsibility. If the prospective contractor is a small business concern, the contracting officer shall comply with subpart 19.6, Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility. (If Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637) applies, see subpart 19.8.)
(c) The award of a contract to a supplier based on lowest evaluated price alone can be false economy if there is subsequent default, late deliveries, or other unsatisfactory performance resulting in additional contractual or administrative costs. While it is important that Government purchases be made at the lowest price, this does not require an award to a supplier solely because that supplier submits the lowest offer. A prospective contractor must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility, including, when necessary, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors.
[48 FR 42142, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 67410, Dec. 20, 1996; 62 FR 44819, Aug. 22, 1997; 62 FR 48921, Sept. 17, 1997; 65 FR 80264, Dec. 20, 2000; 66 FR 17755, Apr. 3, 2001; 66 FR 66986, 66989, Dec. 27, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.103 (b). In making the responsibility determination, the contracting officer must determine that the contractor has “a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.”
United Enter. & Assocs. v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Vinson made the rational determination that UEA was non-responsible, see generally 48 C.F.R. §§ 9.103 and 9.104-1; supra notes 15 and 16.”
Iceland S.S. Co., Ltd.-Eimskip v. United States Dep't of the Army, 201 F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
· cites it 3× “In addition, although I concur in the majority holding regarding the Contracting Officer’s determination of TLL’s operational responsibility, I cannot agree that our standard of review intends nothing more than rubber-stamping the same.”
Supreme Foodservice Gmbh v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 402 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
· cites it 3× “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.103 (b). As detailed herein, generally, a responsibility determination is an evaluation of the putative awardee’s ability to perform what was proposed.”
Tech Sys., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 228 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
“Though Tech Systems acknowledges that contracting officers are entitled to deference in such matters, it contends that there is no documentation that the Contracting Officer considered five of the seven responsibility standards of 48 C.”
Advanced Am. Constr., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 205 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.103 (b) (2012) (“No purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility.”
Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufii v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 421 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.103 (b) (1998). In making the responsibility determination, the contracting officer must determine that the contractor has “a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.”
John C. Grimberg Co., Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
“§ 253 (b)(4) (1994); see also 48 C.F.R. § 9.103 (1998). Responsibility standards are divided into two categories: general standards and special standards.”
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.