10 U.S.C. § 2304a
Renumbered § 3403]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “The court first addressed Oracle’s claim that the con- tracting officer and the Under Secretary of Defense vio- lated separate provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2304a when they each determined that it was appropriate to structure the JEDI Cloud procurement on a single-award basis rather…”
Idea Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “The ICATT and IDEA GSA Schedule contracts at issue here were not entered into under 10 U.S.C. §§ 2304a or 2304b, but pursuant to the authority for GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule program that preexisted the enactment of FASA.”
Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 764 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “at 12 (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(f)). In addition, KBR maintains that its allegations place this matter squarely under our jurisdiction over “alleged violation[s] of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement,” 28 U.”
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn., 594 U.S. 382 (2021). “§1184 (g)(8)(D); 10 U. S. C. §2304a(f ); 19 U. S. C. §2432 (d)(1); 28 U.”
Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “” Count five alleges that the Army violated 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(f) (2012) and DFARS Part 217.”
Global Comput. Enter., Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “By providing “general authorization for the use of task and delivery order contracts to acquire goods and services other than advisory and assistance services,” the FASA was intended as a codification of existing authority to use such contractual vehicles.”
Datamill, Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 740 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “By providing “general authorization for the use of task and delivery order contracts to acquire goods and services other than advisory and assistance services,” the FASA was intended as a codification of existing authority to use such contractual vehicles. All otherwise…”
Solute Consulting v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “at 143; see also 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(b)(3) (requiring a task order solicitation to include a “statement of work, specifications, or other description that reasonably describes the general scope, nature, complexity, and purposes of the services or property to he procured under the…”
Palantir Tech. Inc. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 21 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “” Count five alleges that the Army violated 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(f) (2012) and DFARS Part 217.”
Tyler Constr. Grp. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 94 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “The legitimacy of the approach the Corps has adopted here is reinforced by 10 U.S.C. § 2304a (2006), the statute codifying the government’s IDIQ contracting authority, enacted as part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, Pub.”
Chameleon Integrated Servs., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 564 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “at 135-36 (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(g) (2000)). Our prior precedent shows that FASA applies broadly.”
Sek Solutions, LLC v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 43 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “DLA acknowledges that its approach is novel, but argues that it is supported by a range of statutory sources: 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(a) (“Subject to the requirements of this section .”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(a) — 1 case
Sek Solutions, LLC v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 43 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “DLA acknowledges that its approach is novel, but argues that it is supported by a range of statutory sources: 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(a) (“Subject to the requirements of this section .”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(b) — 1 case
Dyncorp Int'l LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(b)(1) — 1 case
Dyncorp Int'l LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(b)(3) — 1 case
Solute Consulting v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “at 143; see also 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(b)(3) (requiring a task order solicitation to include a “statement of work, specifications, or other description that reasonably describes the general scope, nature, complexity, and purposes of the services or property to he procured under the…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(3) — 1 case
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(3)(A) — 2 cases
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “The court first addressed Oracle’s claim that the con- tracting officer and the Under Secretary of Defense vio- lated separate provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2304a when they each determined that it was appropriate to structure the JEDI Cloud procurement on a single-award basis rather…”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(4) — 2 cases
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “The court first addressed Oracle’s claim that the con- tracting officer and the Under Secretary of Defense vio- lated separate provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2304a when they each determined that it was appropriate to structure the JEDI Cloud procurement on a single-award basis rather…”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(f) — 4 cases
Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 764 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “at 12 (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(f)). In addition, KBR maintains that its allegations place this matter squarely under our jurisdiction over “alleged violation[s] of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement,” 28 U.”
Palantir Usg, Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 218 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “” Count five alleges that the Army violated 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(f) (2012) and DFARS Part 217.”
Palantir Tech. Inc. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 21 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “” Count five alleges that the Army violated 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(f) (2012) and DFARS Part 217.”
Navistar Def., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(g) — 2 cases
Idea Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “The ICATT and IDEA GSA Schedule contracts at issue here were not entered into under 10 U.S.C. §§ 2304a or 2304b, but pursuant to the authority for GSA’s Federal Supply Schedule program that preexisted the enactment of FASA.”
Chameleon Integrated Servs., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 564 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “at 135-36 (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2304a(g) (2000)). Our prior precedent shows that FASA applies broadly.”
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.