10 U.S.C. § 2304c
Renumbered § 3406]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Mission Essential Pers., LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
Mission Essential Pers., LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Thereafter, the United States (“the government”) and Harding Security filed motions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the protest was barred by 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e), which prohibits judicial consideration of protests in connection with the issuance of…”
Pricewaterhousecoopers Pub. Sector, LLP v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “129, 135 (2006) (explaining that 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) “is not intended to apply to protests relating to the placement of orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts”).”
Global Comput. Enter., Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “3243 , 3252-53 (1994) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) (2006) and 41 U.S.C.”
Nexagen Networks, Inc. v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “§ 7103 (a); Task Order; Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e). MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I.”
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “3 , 237 (2008) (amending 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)). . The two acts were passed within a week of each other.”
Idea Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (“FASA”), 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) and 41 U.S.C. § 253j(d).”
Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “” To be sure, 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(l) provides that “[a] protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance of a task order or delivery order except for — (A) a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which…”
Furniture By Thurston v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 505 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “129, 135-36 (2006) ("[The provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2304c are] not intended to apply to protests relating to the placement of orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts.”
A & D Fire Prot., Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 126 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “[via task orders which] must be examined with an eye toward the scope of the [IDIQ] Contract”) (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d), the military procurement equivalent of 41 U.”
Wildflower Int'l, Ltd. v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 362 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “That provision pertained to the issuance or proposed issuance of task or delivery orders by civilian agencies.”
Mvs USA, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 639 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “129, 135-36 (2006) (explaining that the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2304c do not apply to protests relating to the placement of orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts).”
Solute Consulting v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Once again, the parties have not cited, and the court could not find, any GAO decisions in which a task order protest challenging flaws in the evaluation process was permitted to proceed under the “increases the scope” exception in 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(l)(A). In sum, the Federal…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(a) — 2 cases
Pae-Parsons Global Logistics Servs., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(b) — 2 cases
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
SIA Constr., Inc. (A.S.B.C.A. 2014).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) — 14 cases
Global Comput. Enter., Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “3243 , 3252-53 (1994) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) (2006) and 41 U.S.C.”
Idea Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (“FASA”), 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) and 41 U.S.C. § 253j(d).”
A & D Fire Prot., Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 126 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “[via task orders which] must be examined with an eye toward the scope of the [IDIQ] Contract”) (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d), the military procurement equivalent of 41 U.”
Phoenix Air Grp., Inc. v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 90 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
Holloway & Co. v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 381 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e) — 26 cases
Mission Essential Pers., LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Thereafter, the United States (“the government”) and Harding Security filed motions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the protest was barred by 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e), which prohibits judicial consideration of protests in connection with the issuance of…”
Pricewaterhousecoopers Pub. Sector, LLP v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “129, 135 (2006) (explaining that 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) “is not intended to apply to protests relating to the placement of orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts”).”
Nexagen Networks, Inc. v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “§ 7103 (a); Task Order; Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e). MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I.”
Wildflower Int'l, Ltd. v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 362 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “That provision pertained to the issuance or proposed issuance of task or delivery orders by civilian agencies.”
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “3 , 237 (2008) (amending 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)). . The two acts were passed within a week of each other.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(1) — 4 cases
Mission Essential Pers., LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Thereafter, the United States (“the government”) and Harding Security filed motions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the protest was barred by 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e), which prohibits judicial consideration of protests in connection with the issuance of…”
Pae-Parsons Global Logistics Servs., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
Harmonia Holdings Grp., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
Prime Physicians, Pllc v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2024).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(1)(A) — 4 cases
Nexagen Networks, Inc. v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “§ 7103 (a); Task Order; Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e). MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I.”
Mission Essential Pers., LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Thereafter, the United States (“the government”) and Harding Security filed motions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the protest was barred by 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e), which prohibits judicial consideration of protests in connection with the issuance of…”
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
Dyncorp Int'l LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(1)(B) — 5 cases
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
The Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
The Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
Ost, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
Dyncorp Int'l LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(2) — 2 cases
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “3 , 237 (2008) (amending 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)). . The two acts were passed within a week of each other.”
Nexagen Networks, Inc. v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 645 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “§ 7103 (a); Task Order; Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e). MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(3) — 1 case
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “3 , 237 (2008) (amending 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)). . The two acts were passed within a week of each other.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(A) — 1 case
Dyncorp Int'l LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(l) — 7 cases
Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “” To be sure, 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(l) provides that “[a] protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance of a task order or delivery order except for — (A) a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which…”
Furniture By Thurston v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 505 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “129, 135-36 (2006) ("[The provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2304c are] not intended to apply to protests relating to the placement of orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts.”
Mvs USA, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 639 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “129, 135-36 (2006) (explaining that the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2304c do not apply to protests relating to the placement of orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts).”
Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 764 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
Pricewaterhousecoopers Pub. Sector, LLP v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “129, 135 (2006) (explaining that 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) “is not intended to apply to protests relating to the placement of orders under GSA Federal Supply Schedule contracts”).”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(l)(A) — 3 cases
Solute Consulting v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Once again, the parties have not cited, and the court could not find, any GAO decisions in which a task order protest challenging flaws in the evaluation process was permitted to proceed under the “increases the scope” exception in 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(l)(A). In sum, the Federal…”
Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 764 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
Innovative Mgmt. Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 240 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(l)(B) — 1 case
Solute Consulting v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “Once again, the parties have not cited, and the court could not find, any GAO decisions in which a task order protest challenging flaws in the evaluation process was permitted to proceed under the “increases the scope” exception in 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e)(l)(A). In sum, the Federal…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(f) — 2 cases
Idea Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 129 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (“FASA”), 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(d) and 41 U.S.C. § 253j(d).”
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
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.