10 U.S.C. § 2319
Renumbered § 3243]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1999–2020 · 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). “2 is an impermis- sible “qualification requirement” imposed without satisfy- ing the preconditions set forth in 10 U.S.C. § 2319 . Section 2319(a) defines a “qualification requirement” as “a require- ment for testing or other quality assurance demonstration that must be…”
W.G. Yates & Sons Constr. Co., Inc. v. Louis Caldera, Sec'y of the Army, 192 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “(“IDC”), and therefore Yates had standing to bring a claim of its subcontractor against the Army; (2) the Army did not violate 10 U.S.C. § 2319 regarding qualification requirements for subcontractors; (3) the Army did not violate the conflict of interest provision of 48 C.”
California Indus. Facilities Resources, Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 633 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “10 U.S.C. § 2319 1. Qualification Requirements In Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint, CAMSS challenges this procurement on the grounds that the Air Force acted in contravention of 10 U.”
Tat Tech., Ltd. v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 109 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “” 10 U.S.C. § 2319 (a). The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), through the DoD 4120.”
Indus. Door Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 413 (Fed. Cl. 2007). “§ 253 (a)(1)(A) (requiring use of competitive procedures) and 10 U.S.C. § 2319 (rules governing use of qualification requirements).”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “2 is a qualification requirement subject to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. § 2319 (2012). The government responds that Oracle waived this argument, because it had the opportunity to object to the terms of Gate Criteria 1.”
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.