10 U.S.C. § 2304
Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, § 1881(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4293]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 258
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “In sustaining Weeks’s protest, the court determined that the Army Corps of Engineers’s (“Corps’s”) solicitation for indefinite duration indefinite quantity (“IDIQ”) multiple-award task order contracts (“MATOCs”) for dredging was contrary to 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (a), and lacked a…”
L-3 Commc'ns Corp. v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 283 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “Here, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged violations of several statutes and regulations in connection with the proposed sole source award to LM STS, including 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (c)(4), 22 U.S.C. § 2776 , and DFARS § 225.”
Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 380 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “Neither the original Solicitation nor the DFARS appears to contain a definition of “domestic sources,” but in Amendment 0002, effective July 1, 2003, DESC elaborated as follows: We are using the authority at [ 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (c)(3)](A) to restrict competition to offerors who…”
Aero Corp. v. Dep't of the Navy, 540 F. Supp. 180 (D.D.C. 1982). “The specific provision of ASPA that plaintiff claims defendant has violated is 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (g), which creates a requirement that procurements, even if they cannot be competed through formal advertising, 2 must, if possi *183 ble, be awarded on the basis of competitive…”
ATA Def. Indus., Inc. v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 489 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “The essence of plaintiffs complaint is that plaintiff was in a position to compete with Caswell for the products and services required to upgrade the target ranges at Fort Stewart but that the Army, in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 2304 , denied plaintiff the opportunity to compete.”
Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963). “The heart of the proposed bill was § 2 (c), now 10 U. S. C. § 2304 (a), which set out a list of 15 specific exceptions to the rule of competitive bidding.”
Filtration Dev. Co. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 371 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “5 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (c)(2); 48 C.F.R. § 6.302-2 (a)(2).”
Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 22 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “Weeks relies upon 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (a) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) H 6.”
McAfee, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 696 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “§ 3301 ; 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (a)(1); factors governing equitable relief; interests of national defense and national security; 28 U.”
KSD, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 236 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “See 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (2000). CICA, however, permits seven exceptions to the full and open requirement under appropriate circumstances.”
Infrastructure Def. Tech., LLC v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 375 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “) To comply with 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (c)(1), DLA prepared Justifications for Acquisitions (“J & A”) for the proposed IDIQ procurement from Hesco.”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Local 2119 v. William S. Cohen, 171 F.3d 460 (7th Cir. 1999). “§ 2462 and 10 U.S.C. § 2304 ), we believe they have met the standing requirements with respect to the Arsenal Act, and may pursue their claim that it has been violated.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304(a) — 1 case
Wheelabrator Corp. v. Chafee, 455 F.2d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 1971).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(1) — 1 case
Sierra Nevada Corp. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304(f)(4)(A) — 1 case
Innovation Dev. Enter. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 711 (Fed. Cl. 2013).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304(g) — 1 case
Gary Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 342 F. Supp. 473 (W.D. Tex. 1972).
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.