10 U.S.C. § 2304e
Renumbered § 3901]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 2009–2016 · leading case: Global Comput. Enter., Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
Global Comput. Enter., Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “” 66 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(d). Introduced in the United States Senate in 1993, the FASA was considered to be a “comprehensive overhaul of the federal acquisition laws,” S.”
Datamill, Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 740 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “17 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) (footnote added). Introduced in the United States Senate in 1993, the FASA was considered to be a “comprehensive overhaul of the federal acquisition laws,” S.”
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(3) (Supp. IV 2011). In the other, Congress expressly stated its reeodification of title 41 was intended to conform to the original intent of the enacting Congresses, with corrections to address ambiguities, see Pub.”
Pricewaterhousecoopers Pub. Sector, LLP v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “*344 Furthermore, the language and history of FASA indicate that “Congress understood the difference between GSA Schedule contracts and task or delivery order contracts, but the prohibition on bid protests in 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(d) makes no mention of orders under ‘schedule…”
Solute Consulting v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “8 See 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) (2006 & Supp. IV). In such circumstances, the court is not authorized to entertain the protest unless it is based “on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued[.”
Red River Commc'ns, Inc. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 497 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “2007), and whether the protestor has advanced an authorized challenge to the scope of a task order pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) (Supp. V 2011). FACTS Plaintiff Red River Communications, Inc.”
McAfee, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 696 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “at 26 (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(l)). Nonetheless, the jurisdictional analysis pertinent here is much less complex than that postulated by the government.”
Digit. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 711 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “See 10 USCA § 2304e(d): 17 Protest. — A protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order except for a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the…”
Mission Essential Pers., LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “See 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(1). That the law must have a broader effect than simply blocking protests of task-order awards is made evident by the statutory use of the phrase “in connection with” such awards.”
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(b) (“When multiple task or delivery order contracts are awarded .”
California Indus. Facilities Resources, Inc. v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 589 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “]” 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(1)(A) (2006 & Supp. IV).”
Trident Tech., LLC v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(2). Accordingly, neither exception applies, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of Trident’s protest.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(b) — 1 case
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(b) (“When multiple task or delivery order contracts are awarded .”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(d) — 3 cases
Global Comput. Enter., Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “” 66 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(d). Introduced in the United States Senate in 1993, the FASA was considered to be a “comprehensive overhaul of the federal acquisition laws,” S.”
Digit. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 711 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “See 10 USCA § 2304e(d): 17 Protest. — A protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order except for a protest on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the…”
Pricewaterhousecoopers Pub. Sector, LLP v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “*344 Furthermore, the language and history of FASA indicate that “Congress understood the difference between GSA Schedule contracts and task or delivery order contracts, but the prohibition on bid protests in 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(d) makes no mention of orders under ‘schedule…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) — 5 cases
Red River Commc'ns, Inc. v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 497 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “2007), and whether the protestor has advanced an authorized challenge to the scope of a task order pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) (Supp. V 2011). FACTS Plaintiff Red River Communications, Inc.”
Datamill, Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 740 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “17 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) (footnote added). Introduced in the United States Senate in 1993, the FASA was considered to be a “comprehensive overhaul of the federal acquisition laws,” S.”
Pricewaterhousecoopers Pub. Sector, LLP v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “*344 Furthermore, the language and history of FASA indicate that “Congress understood the difference between GSA Schedule contracts and task or delivery order contracts, but the prohibition on bid protests in 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(d) makes no mention of orders under ‘schedule…”
Solute Consulting v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “8 See 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) (2006 & Supp. IV). In such circumstances, the court is not authorized to entertain the protest unless it is based “on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued[.”
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(b) (“When multiple task or delivery order contracts are awarded .”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(1) — 2 cases
Mission Essential Pers., LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “See 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(1). That the law must have a broader effect than simply blocking protests of task-order awards is made evident by the statutory use of the phrase “in connection with” such awards.”
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(b) (“When multiple task or delivery order contracts are awarded .”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(1)(A) — 2 cases
California Indus. Facilities Resources, Inc. v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 589 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “]” 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(1)(A) (2006 & Supp. IV).”
Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 446 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(b) (“When multiple task or delivery order contracts are awarded .”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(2) — 1 case
Trident Tech., LLC v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(2). Accordingly, neither exception applies, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of Trident’s protest.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(3) — 1 case
MORI Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 503 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(3) (Supp. IV 2011). In the other, Congress expressly stated its reeodification of title 41 was intended to conform to the original intent of the enacting Congresses, with corrections to address ambiguities, see Pub.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(l) — 2 cases
Datamill, Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 740 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “17 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) (footnote added). Introduced in the United States Senate in 1993, the FASA was considered to be a “comprehensive overhaul of the federal acquisition laws,” S.”
McAfee, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 696 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “at 26 (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(l)). Nonetheless, the jurisdictional analysis pertinent here is much less complex than that postulated by the government.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(l)(A) — 1 case
Solute Consulting v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 783 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “8 See 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e) (2006 & Supp. IV). In such circumstances, the court is not authorized to entertain the protest unless it is based “on the ground that the order increases the scope, period, or maximum value of the contract under which the order is issued[.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2304e(f) — 1 case
Trident Tech., LLC v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “10 U.S.C. § 2304e(e)(2). Accordingly, neither exception applies, and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of Trident’s protest.”
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.