48 C.F.R. § 9.105

9.105 Procedures.

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 1993–2016 · leading case: Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “The court noted that under the FAR, the contracting officer’s signing of a contract constitutes a determination that the contractor is responsible ( 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 — 2(a)(1)) and that the contracting officer had also specifically found that JVC was responsible.”

OSG Prod. Tankers LLC v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 -l(a); see also John C.”

Naplesyacht.Com, Inc. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 459 (Fed. Cl. 2004). · cites it 2× “11 Rather than request a deposition of the CO, the court offered the Government a less intrusive option either to provide documents or an affidavit that would demonstrate: “1) whether the contracting officer, as required by 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 -l(a), possessed or obtained…”

Hickey v. Chadick, 649 F. Supp. 2d 770 (S.D. Ohio 2009). · cites it 6× “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 -l(a). In making that determination of responsibility, the contracting officer should consider relevant past performance information, including the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the EPLS, records and experience data (including…”

Akal Sec., Inc. v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 310 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 -l(a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, has determined that “the contracting officer is the arbiter of what, and how much, information he needs.”

Anthem Builders, Inc. v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 15 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 7× “at 16-17 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 -l(a); 48 C.F.R. § 9.105-2 (a)); see also Gov’t Reply at 13 (same).”

Supreme Foodservice Gmbh v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 402 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “) Supreme correctly contends that 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 -l(a) requires the CO gather sufficient information for its responsibility evaluation of the sufficiency of the putative awar-dees’ facilities to perform the contract.”

Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufii v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 421 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “In order to answer the question of whether there was a lack of rational basis for the contracting officer’s decision, we must know: (1) whether the contracting officer, as required by 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 -l(a), possessed or obtained information sufficient to decide the integrity…”

YRT Servs. Corp. v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 366 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “48 C.F.R. § 9.105 -l(b) (1991). 22 At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel also argued that, notwithstanding any authority the NPS might have under the CPA, the concepts of responsiveness and responsibility have been long established, that they predate the Competition in…”

Tri-Cnty. Contractors, Inc. v. Thomas Perez, 155 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D.D.C. 2016). “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.105 — 1(b)(1). And while the regulations caution that an expired debarment “may not be relevant to a determination of present responsibility,” see id.”

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.