41 U.S.C. § 107
Full and open competition
In this subtitle, the term “full and open competition”, when used with respect to a procurement, means that all responsible sources are permitted to submit sealed bids or competitive proposals on the procurement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1946–2025 · leading case: Nat'l Gov't Servs. v. United States, 923 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Nat'l Gov't Servs. v. United States, 923 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “This focus on the ability to submit a proposal comes from 41 U.S.C. § 107 , which explains that "the term 'full and open competition', when used with respect to a procurement, means that all responsible sources are permitted to submit sealed bids or competitive proposals on the…”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States, 975 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “” 41 U.S.C. § 107 ; 10 U.S.C. § 2302 (3)(D).”
Am. Saf. Council, Inc. v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 426 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “” 41 U.S.C. § 107 . The Court agrees with ASC that under CICA, OSHA is required to perform an OCI evaluation.”
Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 128 F. Supp. 824 (S.D. Cal. 1955). “§ 101 (b), speaks of “equitable final settlements” as an objective and § 7(e), 41 U.S.C.A. § 107 (e) provides for equitable payments.”
Daniel Hamm Drayage Co. v. Willson, 178 F.2d 633 (8th Cir. 1949). “Thus, Section 7(b) of the Act, 41 U.S.C.A. § 107 (b), provides that, “Whenever any contracting agency is satisfied of the inability of a war contractor to meet his obligations it shall exercise supervision or control over payments to the war contractor on account of termination…”
Mvl USA, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “at 35 (quoting 41 U.S.C. § 107 ). In reply, plaintiffs argue the PLA requirements cannot qualify as mere performance specifications because the PLA requirements apply on a class-wide basis and exclude from competition all contractors unable or unwilling to enter into a PLA with…”
Precision Metal & Mach. Co. v. United States, 68 F. Supp. 437 (Ct. Cl. 1946). “358, 41 U.S.C.A. § 107 (d), the terms of which were set out in the opinion of the Kal Machine Works case.”
Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025). “at 983 (citing 41 U.S.C. § 107 ). A solicitation requirement does not automatically violate CICA, however, just because it effectively excludes bidders who cannot meet the requirement.”
Nat'l Gov't Servs., Inc v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018). “” 41 U.S.C. § 107 ; accord FAR 2.101 (“Full and open competition, when used with respect to a contract action, means that all responsible sources are permitted to compete.”
Oracle Am., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “” 41 U.S.C. § 107 (2012); 10 U.S.C. § 2302 (3)(D) (2012).”
Kingfisher Sys., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “” 41 U.S.C. § 107 (2012); accord FAR 2.101 (“Full and open competition, when used with respect to a contract action, means that all responsible sources are permitted to compete.”
The Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2020). “” 41 U.S.C. § 107 (emphasis added). Similarly, 10 U.”
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.