7 C.F.R. § 246.24

Procurement and property management

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

(a) Requirements. State and local agencies shall ensure that subgrantees comply with the requirements for the nonprocurement debarment/suspension requirements and, if applicable, the lobbying restrictions as required in 2 CFR part 180, OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-wide Debarment and Suspension, 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400, part 415, and part 417 concerning the procurement and allowability of food in bulk lots, supplies, equipment and other services with Program funds. These requirements are adopted to ensure that such materials and services are obtained for the Program in an effective manner and in compliance with the provisions of applicable law and executive orders.

(b) Contractual responsibilities. The standards contained in A-130 and 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and Appendix II, Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415 do not relieve the State or local agency of the responsibilities arising under its contracts. The State agency is the responsible authority, without recourse to FNS, regarding the settlement and satisfaction of all contractual and administrative issues arising out of procurements entered into in connection with the Program. This includes, but is not limited to, disputes, claims, protests of award, source evaluation, or other matters of a contractual nature. Matters concerning violation of law are to be referred to such local, State or Federal authority as may have proper jurisdiction.

(c) State regulations. The State or local agency may use its own procurement regulations which reflect applicable State and local regulations, provided that procurements made with Program funds adhere to the standards set forth in A-130 and 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and Appendix II, Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415.

(d) Property acquired with Program funds. State and local agencies shall observe the standards prescribed in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415 in their utilization and disposition of real property and equipment, including automated data processing equipment, acquired in whole or in part with Program funds.

[50 FR 6121, Feb. 13, 1985, as amended at 59 FR 11508, Mar. 11, 1994; 81 FR 66494, 66495, Sept. 28, 2016]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1983–2016 · leading case: Alexander v. Polk, 572 F. Supp. 605 (E.D. Pa. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alexander v. Polk, 572 F. Supp. 605 (E.D. Pa. 1983). · cites it 8× “Plaintiffs also challenged the City’s failure to provide removed recipients with either the notice prescribed by the regulations, 7 C.F.R. § 246.24 , or process which would meet the requirements of the due process clause.”

Alexander v. Polk, 750 F.2d 250 (3rd Cir. 1984). · cites it 9× “7 C.F.R. § 246.24 (a) (1978). During the pendency of any such hearings, recipients participating in the Program were to “continue to receive Program benefits until a decision is reached in the fair hearing proceedings.”

Brenda Edwards v. Dist. of Columbia, a Mun. Corp., 821 F.2d 651 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “1984) ( 7 C.F.R. § 246.24 (a) (1978) provides that "[w]henever a person is determined to be ineligible to participate in the [Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children, 42 U.”

Silver v. Baggiano, 804 F.2d 1211 (11th Cir. 1986). “1984) (“It is clear that 7 C.F.R. § 246.24 (1978) created an enforceable right on behalf of WIC recipients to be informed of the availability of fair hearings.”

South Camden Citizens v. New Jersey Dep't of Env't Prot., 274 F.3d 771 (3rd Cir. 2001). “2d at 259 (“It is clear that 7 C.F.R. § 246.24 created an enforceable right on behalf of [plaintiffs] to be informed of the availability of fair hearings.”

Gerber Prods. Co. v. Vilsack (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “” Plaintiff alleges that USDA “directed [Virginia]’s actions” and “usurped the role of [Virginia],” thereby violating 7 C.F.R. § 246.24 (b), a USDA regulation concerning state WIC procurements.”

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.