U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle C— Navy and Marine Corps › Part PART IV— GENERAL ADMINISTRATION › Chapter CHAPTER 869— NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

10 U.S.C. § 3406

ADMINISTRATION.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Protection of Existing Rights.—At the discretion of the Secretary of Energy, the disposal of property under this title shall be subject to any contract related to the United States ownership interest in the property in effect at the time of disposal, including any lease agreement pertaining to the United States interest in Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2.“(b)Deposit of Receipts.—Notwithstanding any other law, all monies received by the United States from the disposal of property under this title, including any monies received from a lease entered into under this title, shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury.“(c)Treatment of Royalties.—Any petroleum accruing to the United States as royalty from any lease of lands transferred under this title shall be delivered to the United States, or shall be paid for in money, as the Secretary of the Interior may elect.“(d)Elements of Lease.—A lease under this title may provide for the exploration for, and development and production of, petroleum, other than petroleum in the form of oil shale.“(e)Waiver of Requirements Regarding Consultation and Approval.—Section 7431 [now 8731] of title 10, United States Code, shall not apply to the disposal of property under this title.“(f)Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2.—This section does not apply to the transfer of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 2 under section 3405.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2021–2026 · leading case: percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, 104 F.4th 839 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, 104 F.4th 839 (Fed. Cir. 2024). · cites it 8× “The trial court erred in holding that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) task order bar, 10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f)(1), applies to Percipient’s protest, thereby removing the case from coverage by the Tucker Act.”
22nd Century Tech., Inc. v. United States, 57 F.4th 993 (Fed. Cir. 2023). · cites it 4× “Because OHA’s size determination was made in connection with the issuance of a task order, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (“FASA”), 10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f), barred the Claims Court from exercising jurisdiction over 22nd Century’s bid protest.”
Siemens Gov't Tech., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). · cites it 12× “(“Siemens”)—is essentially a dispute over the definitional context in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (“FASA”) jurisdictional task order bar, 10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f). 2 See generally Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.”
Prime Physicians, Pllc v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2024). · cites it 2× “In its corrective action memo, the Agency acknowledged that were “errors in the procurement” because of the inclusion of a three-month transition phase in Prime Physicians’ 6 FASA provides a separate bar for protests involving the Department of Defense codified at 10 U.S.C. §…”
Siemens Gov't Tech., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). · cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f). FASA provides that a “protest is not authorized in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task 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…”
Siemens Gov't Tech., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2026). · cites it 2× “” 10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f)(1). As FASA’s task-order bar has been interpreted by the Federal Circuit and other judges of this court, Siemens’s claims are not directly or causally connected to the issuance or non-issuance of a task order.”
22nd Century Tech., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “6This provision will be moved to 10 U.S.C. § 3406 effective January 1, 2022.”
Mlinqs, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). “(citing 10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f)). First, plaintiff contends the Court has jurisdiction to review an agency’s decision to cancel a solicitation “where the cancellation was completely isolated from the eventual solicitation of a PCS solution by a request for task order proposals.”
percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). “” 10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f)(1). It argues that we lack jurisdiction over Percipient’s protest because its development of a computer vision system is being performed under a task order and therefore falls outside this court’s jurisdiction.”
percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023). “” 10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f)(1). An agency’s challenged action is “in connection with the issuance” of a task order if there is a direct and causal relationship between the two.”
Raytheon Co. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “, 10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f)(1) (limiting scope of judicial review of military task and delivery orders); 41 U.”
Red River Sci. & Tech., LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “10 U.S.C. § 3406 (f)(1); see also 41 U.S.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.