48 C.F.R. § 9.205

9.205 Opportunity for qualification before award.

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

(a) If an agency determines that a qualification requirement is necessary, the agency activity responsible for establishing the requirement must urge manufacturers and other potential sources to demonstrate their ability to meet the standards specified for qualification and, when possible, give sufficient time to arrange for qualification before award. The responsible agency activity must, before establishing any qualification requirement, furnish notice through the GPE. The notice must include—

(1) Intent to establish a qualification requirement;

(2) The specification number and name of the product;

(3) The name and address of the activity to which a request for the information and opportunity described in 9.202(a)(2) should be submitted;

(4) The anticipated date that the agency will begin awarding contracts subject to the qualification requirement;

(5) A precautionary notice that when a product is submitted for qualification testing, the applicant must furnish any specific information that may be requested of the manufacturer before testing will begin; and

(6) The approximate time period following submission of a product for qualification testing within which the applicant will be notified whether the product passed or failed the qualification testing (see 9.202(a)(4)).

(b) The activity responsible for establishing a qualification requirement must keep any list maintained of those already qualified open for inclusion of additional products, manufacturers, or other potential sources.

[50 FR 35476, Aug. 30, 1985, as amended at 64 FR 72418, Dec. 27, 1999; 66 FR 27413, May 16, 2001; 68 FR 56679, Oct. 1, 2003; 69 FR 77872, Dec. 28, 2004]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2021 · leading case: Lax Electronics, Inc. v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lax Electronics, Inc. v. United States (2020) cafc · cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.205 (a). See J.A. 519–20. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction under § 1491(b).”

Lax Electronics, Inc. v. United States (2019) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.205 (a) (2019). Reading the complaint generously, we construe the argument to be that, by not responding to plaintiffs CARs and booting it from the QPL, the agency has failed to give LAX “sufficient time to arrange for qualification before award” as to the five…”

Lax Electronics, Inc. v. United States (2021) uscfc “” 48 C.F.R. § 9.205 (a)(4) (2020). The government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

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.