48 C.F.R. § 9.106-1

9.106-1 Conditions for preaward surveys.

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

(a) A preaward survey is normally required only when the information on hand or readily available to the contracting officer, including information from commercial sources, is not sufficient to make a determination regarding responsibility. In addition, if the contemplated contract will have a fixed price at or below the simplified acquisition threshold or will involve the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services (see part 12), the contracting officer should not request a preaward survey unless circumstances justify its cost.

(b) When a cognizant contract administration office becomes aware of a prospective award to a contractor about which unfavorable information exists and no preaward survey has been requested, it shall promptly obtain and transmit details to the contracting officer.

(c) Before beginning a preaward survey, the surveying activity shall ascertain whether the prospective contractor is debarred, suspended, or ineligible (see subpart 9.4). If the prospective contractor is debarred, suspended, or ineligible, the surveying activity shall advise the contracting officer promptly and not proceed with the preaward survey unless specifically requested to do so by the contracting officer.

[48 FR 42142, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 27489, July 31, 1986; 60 FR 48237, Sept. 18, 1995; 61 FR 39201, July 26, 1996; 86 FR 61021, Nov. 4, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1998–2000 · leading case: James Giesler & Luke Coniglio (Doing Bus. as Cent. Park Co.) v. United States, Defendant-Cross, 232 F.3d 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James Giesler & Luke Coniglio (Doing Bus. as Cent. Park Co.) v. United States, Defendant-Cross, 232 F.3d 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “See 48 C.F.R. § 9.106-1 . Russell Kinney, a pre-award survey manager, testified that for companies being inspected, the pre-award survey presentation is “their presentation, their demonstration of their ability to perform.”

CRC Marine Servs., Inc. v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.106-1 . . Apparently, Calore reluctantly attended what is derisively referred to in CRC’s complaint as a "gathering billed as a 'pre-award survey.”

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.