48 C.F.R. § 9.106
9.106 Preaward surveys.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 2000–2013 · leading case: Supreme Foodservice Gmbh v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 402 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
Supreme Foodservice Gmbh v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 402 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “The Agency’s responsibility due diligence was not only lawful, but required under 48 C.F.R. § 9.106 . MR. ASHMAN: ... [W]e’re aware of no caselaw that says unequal discussions occur when there’s information that reflects negatively on the party that the agency considers, that if…”
United Enter. & Assocs. v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “; 48 C.F.R. § 9.106 -l(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.”
James Giesler & Luke Coniglio (Doing Bus. as Cent. Park Co.) v. United States, Defendant-Cross, 232 F.3d 864 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “407 (duty to examine bids); 48 C.F.R. § 9.106 (duty to conduct pre-award surveys).”
Hickey v. Chadick, 649 F. Supp. 2d 770 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “105 -l(b)(l); 48 C.F.R. § 9.106 -l(a). 3 . During oral argument on this motion, plaintiffs argued there was no such underlying record because they had never been formally found in violation of any contract.”
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.