10 U.S.C. § 2305
Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, § 1881(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4293]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 238
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, & Rs Info. Sys., Inc., 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, & Rs Info. Sys., Inc., 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “10 U.S.C. § 2305 (a)(2)(A) (2000); 41 U.S.”
JWK Int'l Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 371 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that the agency improperly evaluated JWK’s Past Performance volume as lacking CPARS data and as not demonstrating across the entire team, “managerial control systems/systemic improvements.”
Textron, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “” 10 U.S.C. § 2305 (b)(1) (2000). In contrast with the analysis of whether the agency decision has a rational basis, an agency has no discretion regarding the mandate of applicable laws and regulations.”
Femme Comp Inc. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 704 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “” 10 U.S.C. § 2305 (a)(2)(A) (2000); accord id.”
Linc Gov't Servs., LLC v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 672 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “¶¶ 66-70 (citing 10 U.S.C. § 2305 (a)(3)(A)(ii), FAR 15.305(a), FAR 15.”
Comprehensive Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 70 Fed. Cl. 700 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “The Source Selection Authority Did Not Violate 10 U.S.C. § 2305 (b)(1) Or Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.”
PHT Supply Corp. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 1 (Fed. Cl. 2006). “303 Plaintiff argues first that the award to Airtronic violated 10 U.S.C. § 2305 (b)(1) (2000). This federal statute provides that, in negotiated procurements, agencies “shall evaluate .”
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 375 F.3d 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “” 10 U.S.C. § 2305 (a)(3)(A)(ii) (emphasis added).”
Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (1963). “The mandate of 10 U. S. C. § 2305 (a) is still unequivocal; and the statutory exceptions to competitive bidding contained in § 2304 (a), discussed above, remain unchanged.”
Level 3 Commc'ns, LLC v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 487 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “§ 1491 ; Contract Award Procedures, 10 U.S.C § 2305; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) 252.”
Chenega Mgmt., LLC v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 556 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “In doing so, the Air Force “shifted its favoritism” from Offeror 3 to DRG and deviated from the stated evaluation criteria by converting the source selection methodology from “best value” to “lowest cost, technically acceptable,” in violation of the Competition in Contracting…”
Red River Holdings, LLC v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 768 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “Red River also argues that by not requiring full compliance with the technical requirements, the agency improperly relaxed the requirements for Sealift, without affording the same to Red River, thereby violating the Competition in Contracting Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2305 (a)(1)(A)…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(1) — 1 case
Agustawestland North Am., Inc. v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 793 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(l)(A)(I) — 1 case
Esterhill Boat Serv. Corp. v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 483 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2305(b)(5)(B)(vii) — 1 case
Nika Tech., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2305(c) — 1 case
Black Hotel Co. v. Froehlke, 351 F. Supp. 956 (W.D. Okla. 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.